Anarchy: A Non Sequitur Non Compos Mentis

(AUTHOR’S NOTE: FINAL EDITING AND ADDITIONS COMPLETED ON FRIDAY, JUNE 19, AT 3:45PM PACIFIC TIME. –Clint)

–=–

Like many out there, I have come to realize that an institutionalized “truth” used as the basis for cultural groupings and internet forums exposes them as only a cult of personality when valid questions are not allowed to infiltrate its proposed foundational axioms. The notion of anarchy as a modern-day movement is no exception. It relies upon no historical example, needs no grammatical foundation or definition, and contemplates no specific goal.

When I first broached this subject on my radio show, I was surprised at how many folks out there were quite pleased that someone was actually speaking to the fallacy of what seems logical regarding this false proposition of anarchy. Apparently, like any religion, those who ask questions are chastised, verbally abused, and fallaciously character-assassinated. And I was no exception. But they messed with the wrong dude.

And so I have created this research article rather than text battle these authors of confusion in the distraction and disorder of internet forums.

Let me tell you now of my experiences in trying to crack the nut that has somehow become this popular, cultural meme, falsely branded as anarchy…

–=–Text Wars andTalk Radio–=–

So what was it that sparked my interest in exposing this false enlightenment movement called anarchism?

As with so many others who have thanked me for my efforts and for demanding answers, all I did was ask questions to a few supposed, self-proclaimed anarchists. It was their fallacious responses and insults in avoiding these questions that sucked me in, and their fans and cult-like followers continue to espouse the wonder of anarchy without a single ounce of source material verifying their proclamations. It is truly the blind leading the blind, or as anarchy is defined below, the leading of the leaderless.

Unfortunately, no one likes being told they are in a cult via rational intervention, especially one that relies on false dialectic (logic without source). So in disclosure, stop reading now if you religiously believe that in absoluteness you know what anarchy is and don’t want to challenge your beliefs. Isn’t that what cult-folk do?

For those who seek knowledge… In exposition of just what anarchy is and who is promoting it as attached to natural law and the trivium method, here are my radio shows about anarchy in order of appearance. Be sure to read the comments and read the rhetoric with your fallacy-buster glasses on.

After this debate, moderated by Jan Irvin, and per our previous show, the Marc Stevens gang has been on full damage control. What is their version of damage control?

Attack the messenger. Attack the mediator. Attack the messenger. Repeat. It’s an anti-Clint fest, with hardly any addressing of the actual discussion. The comments are priceless, absolutely one-sided, and somehow all self-similar in style and form, just like one would expect from a cultural following that relies on celebrity and emotional response instead of primary sources for their information and rhetoric.

Notes on this debate, as well as a fallacious attack in the changing of the debates title and purpose, was of course placed upon MarcStevens.net by the name “Calvin,” using fallacy built on other fallacy. Amazing…

Here’s how it looks:

CoS (Call Of Shame) – Jun 9, 2015 – Statism is a Mental Disorder

“Return visitors here, and listeners to the show, get that facts and evidence are objective, reproducible, and tangible. No amount of redefining your way out of the terms used in a question can compensate for an absence of facts and evidence to support your claims, but lets listen to a statist try anyway, here is a sample of some of the logical excrement:

“Anarchy is the problem, not the solution.”

“Government is in a state of anarchy.”

“My questions weren’t being answered.” review the record and listen to who wasn’t answering who’s questions. Hint: its really obvious.

After Marc explains that “comply-or-die” is a phrase used to describe the force continuum, Clint and Jan dismiss this fact no less than 5 times throughout the recording!

Because a bear can kill a bear in the animal kingdom, that does not equate to humans cannot live without institutionalized coercive hierarchies, or in a state of anarchy if you will.

Clint claims Marc isn’t providing any facts right after he just laid the facts out.

“The Federal Reserve is not federal; total BS.”not my area of expertise, but for some reason I think that’s wrong….

“Just because you say there is no government [which we aren’t, we are asking what facts and evidence is there to prove government does exist: his argument], that does not mean there is no government.”demanding Marc to prove something that doesn’t exist.

Clint condescendingly talks down to Marc many times, such as when describing his language as a catchphrase.”

–=–

Marc and his followers mistakenly use the word statist as a petty name calling ad hominem and well-poisoning weapon whenever anyone questions their foundational precepts or just asks perfectly reasonable questions. But they apparently don’t quite know what it means! Many people have had this same experience, and it feels when talking to them like being in a support group for the character assassinated as more and more folks have contacted me with similar stories of no less verbose abuse.

My text response to “Calvin” as to the title re-assigned to our debate?

“If A.K.A. “Marc Stevens” says I’m a statist, I must be one. Therefore, since Marc Stevens says I’m a statist, I therefore must also have a “mental disorder”, since statism is also said by the actor “Marc Stevens” to be a mental disorder. So it must therefore all be true. One must equal the other. And, of course, if I have a mental disorder, perhaps people will not notice the words of the debate – because who would really want to listen to a mentally deranged statist? No evidence or admission of statism, but with logic and rhetoric, who needs grammer? Never have I heard such abuses of the Trivium with its clasical form, Calvin, as in this debate. So much logic before grammar, or in absence of any grammar. Folks should use this debate to learn how to spot and name logical falacies, including Calvin’s current appeals to emotion and ad hominem, and including the fact that no axiom of foundation could be reached in 3 hours to even start the debate.”

(Note: Actual texts, spelling not corrected.)

–=–

Of course, this was not a typical “call” to his show or a cold-call to an uninformed, unprepared-to-respond government employee as per his usual antics, but who needs accuracy in anarchism?

In fact, this use of the title of “statist” was used even before the show upon my name, among other attempts to poison my well. Why? Because I asked legitimate questions.

At the end of a string of questions that went totally unanswered, here was the final response:

Marc Stevens: “Anarchy is no rulers, not no rules… generally anarchists, such as me, adhere to the non-aggression principal and respect for personal autonomy”

Vin James: “so essentially Clint, your a statist, and that’s a position you can argue on the radio show next week”

Marc Stevens: “wow, I can’t even… looks like Clint favors having rulers, and advocates that a small group of people forcing strangers to give them money“

Vin James: “trouble is with statists is they confuse the needs of goverment, with the needs of society, as they are not the same thing.”

–=–

Dismissing the evidence and questions based on an appeal to an non-factual appeal to an appeal to authority? How bizarre…

For the record, I never claimed statism nor used the word statist, never claimed that I am pro-statist, nor did I espouse its use as a good thing in any way. Mostly because I actually know what it means.

STATIST –noun [from state.] A statesman; a politician; one skilled in government. Statists indeed, and lovers of their country. [Not now used.]

–Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

–=–

To be clear, anyone that listens to my show or has read my work (or saw my questions) knows I do not love my country, for loving an idol, a false god, a legal fiction, a totally unnatural thing is illogical and employs emotion where there should be none. I don’t practice any government art in title, permission, or license to do business, am not in any way skilled in government nor have I ever been elected or employed by government, and I am certainly no statesman. Yet I can be called a “statist” by those who know not or purposefully ignore its true definition because they can’t function under the pressure of rational discourse when the trivium is actually applied correctly.

When someone comes along with knowledge of language and is able to disprove the falsely recreated grammar of the peddlers of false enlightenment, what else can the gurus do but to attack the messenger?

For those who grasp the fact that by defining terms according to the realm and jurisdiction of the art it applies does not make one an employee or supporter of that “State” in statism, you should recognize this as merely a pathetic and uneducated name-calling attempt at attacking the messenger to make anyone who challenges their lies or beLIEfs appear as a supporter of the state instead of just one learned in its terms of art so as to fight its tactics. A clever but ultimately failing attempt at discrediting the messenger.

As one last note on the ridiculous assertions by these citizens pretending to be anarchists, the actor “Marc Stevens” states that he believes and adheres to the “non-aggression principle.” But is this a logical conclusion, considering that “Marc” is in citizenship to the United States under his legal name and other sigils, numbers, and signs? You might not believe in aggression, but aggression certainly believes in you!

Let’s read what your equal rights are as a United States citizen straight from U.S. Code:

42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law

(a) Statement of equal rights

All persons within the jurisdiction of the UnitedStates shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions(extortions) of every kind,and to no other.

(b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined

For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.

(c) Protection against impairment

The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.

Force, duress, coercion… it’s all spelled out right here for you. And it only applies to the fictional person. Yes, government allows you to have the right and obligation to be put in pain, punished, taxed, licensed and extorted/exacted at any time. Why? Because you are acting in surety of government’s person (property), and it makes the rules over its own creation. Government is god (magistrate) over its fictional persons. Yes you are in a contractual relationship called citizenship, and a voluntary one at that. As we can read, the laws of the United States trump any State law. Why? Because U.S. Citizen-ships (vessels) are not “the People” of the individual (several) States. We are registered agents of Washington D.C. using its property in interstate commerce. The word “district” is legally defined as distress, distraint, and seizure. The problem is not the State (People), the problem is that U.S. citizens are not protected by the State (People’s) government from the United States jurisdiction that seized them at birth in its district. A U.S. citizen has no protection under state laws if the U.S. law exists despite and in dominion to it (over its own “native” persons). Again, because we do not understand the legal words we commonly use, we are entrapped and conquered (purchased) by them.

NATIVA – In old English law. A niefe or female villein. So called because for the most part bond by nativity. Co. Litt. 1226.

NATIVI DE STIPITE – Villeins or bondmen by birth or stock. Cowel.

NATIVI CONVENTIONARII – Villeins or bondmen by contract or agreement.

NATIVE – A natural-born subject or citizen; a denizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to. The term may also include one born abroad, if his parents were then citizens of the country, and not permanently residing in foreign parts.

NATIVITAS – In old English law. Villenage; that state in which men were born slaves. 2 Mon. Angl. 643.

NATIVUS – A servant born. Spelman.

–Black’s Law 1st edition

NATIVITY – noun 1.Birth; the coming into life or the world. The feast of Christmas is observed in memory of Christs nativity. 2.Time, place and manner of birth; as, to calculate ones nativity. 3.State or place of being produced. These, in their dark nativity the deep Shall yield us pregnant with infernal flame.

–Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

–=–

As was attempted to be stated to the seemingly unteachable false-persona “Marc Stevens,” this birth process is as old as recorded history, an ancient system of pledging. The modern financial instrument called the “birth certificate” only aids in the legal process of the formation, bond, bail, securitization and surety process (insurance of the state “last” surname attached to the given “christian” first name). The word last in legal terms means superior to and in dominion over. To use the fallacy that the act of nativity did not happen before this modern certification instrument is ridiculous, for this 1st edition of Black’s Law was printed before the first U.S. birth certificate ever was. In fact, the family Bible has been used for ages as official vital statistics, and the family Bible entry is superior in authority to a legal birth certificate. Nature (the given first name) is superior to fiction (the surname) in all cases, but only if invoked.

For those who seek knowledge, they will better understand here what the “nativity scene” story of christ was really about, finding his spiritual life to defeat the legal, civil nativity of being born into the king’s (false god magistrate’s) subjection. But the Bible is just religion, right? And the Bible appearing in courtrooms is just a technicality, right? Think again…

So who’s definitions do you think you should choose to comprehend… that of the actors Marc Stevens and Mark Passio, or that of the government, which defines the terms that rule over our voluntary contractual relationship because we are acting in its commercial person? When in an art (artifice), learn its damn terms!!!

But Marc claims that government doesn’t apparently exist, so the Code must also not exist. Legal libraries must not exist. My birth certificate must be non-existent. The military must not exist. Etc. Ad infinity… which strangely enough must mean that threat, duress, and coercion must not exist either, since it would take government to apply them. The foundational fallacy is the killer of any debate, and the schism that government doesn’t exist is purely irrational and immature.

Whatever side you choose here, I suggest doing your due diligence (light) before blindly following a willfully blind man (darkness). I don’t wish to be your leader, only to inform you of why these leaders are very dangerous in their voluntary ignorance and free sharing of it, and to show you proof below that they are at least misleading and at worse lying to you.

Amusingly, if you want information on worldwide anarchy, you can go to one of many of the “federations” of anarchists.

ANARCHIST FEDERATION: “As anarchist communists we fight for a world without leaders, where power is shared equally amongst communities, and people are free to reach their full potential. We do this by supporting working class resistance to exploitation and oppression, organise alongside our neighbours and workmates, host informative events, and produce publications that help make sense of the world around us.”

–=–

Be it socialists, communists, communitarians, syndiclists, or capitalists, it is as if someone is playing a cosmic joke on us useful innocents – just as Lenin was able to propagandize to Americans to support the Bolshevik Revolutionary “communist” killing of millions upon millions in the “Russian Revolution.” Note that revolution is defined as well as a synonym anarchy. And if you’ve been following my shows and that of Jan Irvin’s research, it is easy to see that historically, most “revolutions” are controlled by authors in the existing government apparatus. Revolutions are a form of circular logic, a necessary false movement that always seems to end right back where it started – with the same government rulers in different hats, or some other sect of the same bloodline or enemies of it. World War I was just a war for profit between royal cousins!

You see, anarchy cannot exist by itself without some system of government being attached to it, for anarchy is only chaos and disorder, and so it cannot be a viable system in and of itself. Anarchy can only destroy the current system. And without government, anarchy has no applications. It cannot and more importantly should not be redefined, for to do so would be to promote the repeating of some very bad, blood-filled history. We simply cannot allow these liars to turn chaos into a good thing by fallaciously redefining it.

Again with irony, the term federation simply means state. This seems to reflect an anarchy of literacy here in these so-called modern anarchists. There are international anarchist federations inside of Italy, Spain, Portugal, and in other nations.

Note that: Sovereignty = People = State.

FEDERAL – 1. Pertaining to a league or compact between independent sovereignties. Composed of states which retain only a portion of their original sovereignty relating to the constitution, treaties, or laws, or the power or government of the organization thereby formed. Appropriate to our General Government, the government of the United States, considered as a Union of States or local governments. The word “National” recognizes the State governments and the government of the Union as distinct systems.* In the second sense are the common expressions Federal or federal— amendments. Constitution, courts, elections, decisions, judges, laws and statutes, question, government, officer. In these phrases the word of contrast is “State:” as. State constitutions, courts, laws, etc. See those titles.

FEDERALIST – A publication issued from 1787 to 1789, and consisting of papers, written by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, intended to prepare the people for accepting the Constitution. Of its eighty-flve numbers. Jay wrote five, Madison twenty-nine, and Hamilton fifty-one. ” They form a work of enduring interest, because they are the earliest commentary on the new experiment of mankind in establishing a republican form of government for a country of boundless dimensions.”

States of anarchists? So they want to be more like the federal union of American States? Talk about confusion in terms…

It seems that even the concept of the “No-State Project” as put forward by Marc Steven’s is based on misconceptions and faulty grammar and therefore false dialectic (bad logic) yet again. At best, federalism is the support of political party called the Federalists. But how and why should a political party exist if government is non-existent? Why form organized political parties if anarchy (disorganization) is the goal? There is just something not right here. The terms are contradictory. I smell a stream of rats.

As we will see, organized anarchy can only be defined as organized chaos when applying proper grammar.

But first we must overwhelmingly define terms so as to have a reasonable and foundational discourse to accurately apply the trivium method… something these self-proclaimed anarchists seem to be vehemently opposed to.

–=–Definitions:The Terms Of Art–=–

My first red flag was the foundational definition placed upon anarchy by such names as “Marc Stevens,” “Mark Passio” and others in similar circles who promote anarchy as a state of being. Rules without rulers…

When I tried to verify that this indeed is and historically was considered as the universally defined state of anarchy, I could find not one shred of evidence or verification. And so I was in a position where I could either believe Noah Webster, Black’s Law, the learned men titled “founding fathers of the United States,” and for that matter every other source of grammar in language, or I could trust a few gurus that have seemingly usurped the word anarchy and re-purposed it for their own ends and profits.

The Marc Stevens definition is a purely etymological one, and his whole argument is seamlessly hitched upon this one specific branding of just what anarchy is and is not. However, I could not find proper evidence to support what I believe to be the purposefully skewed mistranslation of the word, its roots in origin, and of the systems of anarchy. The maxim of law states that when the foundation falls, the magistrates (magi, magicians, false gods) fall. Yet another self-evident truth. An axiom. Belief creates foundation. Government exists on belief, faith, oath, fealty, credit, and confirmation of the fraud it is. Ironically, people believe in government and follow its laws more than they believe in God and follow what is called God’s law of nature, though government is an admitted, verifiable fiction of law.

To be accurate, let’s first clear up any misconceptions about what the law of nature actually is, for the Satanist will of course wish to remove the notion of God from the law, and the anarchist will admit to no such higher law of God.

Bouvier’s 1856 Dictionary was commissioned by congress to define the terms of the constitution, and became part of law. I’d say this is a good source to comprehend what was meant in the declaration of independence as regards the notion of the law of nature.

LAW OF NATURE – The law of nature is that which God, the sovereign of the universe, has prescribed to all men, not by any formal promulgation, but by the internal dictate of reason alone. It is discovered by a just consideration of the agreeableness or disagreeableness of human actions to the nature of man; and it comprehends all the duties which we owe either to the Supreme Being, to ourselves, or to our neighbors; as reverence to God, self-defence, temperance, honor to our parents, benevolence to all, a strict adherence to our engagements, gratitude, and the like… The primitive laws of nature may be reduced to six, namely: 1. Comparative sagacity, or reason. 2. Self-love. 3. The attraction of the sexes to each other. 4. The tenderness of parents towards their children. 5. The religious sentiment. 6. Sociability. 3. -1. When man is properly organized, he is able to discover moral good from moral evil; and the study of man proves that man is not only an intelligent, but a free being, and he is therefore responsible for his actions. The judgment we form of our good actions, produces happiness; on the contrary the judgment we form of our bad actions produces unhappiness… 7. – 5. The religious sentiment which leads us naturally towards the Supreme Being, is one of the attributes which belong to humanity alone; and its importance gives it the rank of the moral law of nature. From this sentiment arise all the sects and different forms of worship among men…

–=–

You simply cannot take the religious sentiment and separate it from the law of nature. To do so is to fundamentally alter the ancient principles of universal reason and law. Lack of understanding of the Bible is no excuse to abandon it as fallacious dogma.

To be even more clear, and to show the ancient example of the same exact case, where a cult-like religion attempted to fundamentally alter the perception of what the law of nature is, Black’s 1st Edition gives us this history:

NATURAL LAW – The rule and dictate of right reason, showing the moral deformity or moral necessity there is in any act, according to its suitableness or unsuitableness to a reasonable nature. Tayl. Civil Law, 99. This expression, “natural law,” or jus naturale, was largely used in the philosophical speculations of the Roman jurists of the Antonine age, and was intended to denote a system of rules and principles for the guidance of human conduct which, independently of enacted law or of the systems peculiar to any one people, might be discovered by the rational intelligence of man, and would be found to grow out of and conform to his nature, meaning by that word his whole mental, moral, and physical constitution. The point of departure for this conception was the Stoic doctrine of a life ordered “according to nature,” which in its turn rested upon the purely supposititious existence, in primitive times, of a “state of nature;” that is, a condition of society in which men universally were governed solely by a rational and consistent obedience to the needs, impulses, and promptings of their true nature, such nature being as yet undefaced bydishonesty, falsehood, or indulgenceof the baser passions. See Maine, Anc. Law, 50, et seq.

–=–

And here we find the true fault in this modern notion of natural law as anarchy. For the stoics based their theories upon the notion that man was innocent from dishonesty, falsehoods such as names, titles, and citizenship, and the American way – the indulgence of the baser passions. What man in America qualifies as such? Where do we find a people that are untouched by greed, artifice, and indulgences against the natural order? From our childhood we are now taught to learn on computers, talk on cellphones, and eat artificial foods. Nothing about the American lifestyle is geared towards this philosophy, and our system of education is certainly not based on the liberal arts. Logic and reason based on grammar is conveniently absent from a majority of people, simply because they are masterfully entertained from all angles, drowning in bread and circus, and educated into beasts of burden not rational men.

And yet somehow we can expect to live under the natural law in anarchy and expect the rest of the vaccine-damaged, fully governed societies to recognize an unorganized, nation-less bunch of men under the tenets of international law? The majority will just suddenly overcome the artifice and magically become pro-anarchy, giving up all benefits and protections of the State and their social security and unemployment checks?

To put this into perspective, the hard rockin’ Marc Stevens is not stoic. The stoics were religious people. “Marc” is married to the state as a citizen-ship. His marriage is by license of the State. And his “free speech” is being allowed by the State.

And yet we need to know the disposition of the State, for it only recognizes “religious men” to be free to act upon their moral beliefs. To do this, we must commit the apparent sin against anarchy and define the terms of art used by the legal realm in government. For while anarchy is to have no organized language, government is opposed to anarchy. Again, to understand government, logically then we must learn its language.

RELIGIOUS MEN – Such as entered into some monastery or convent. In old English deeds, the vendee was often restrained from aliening to “Jews or religious men” lest the lands should fall into mortmain (dead hands). Religious men were civilly dead. Blount.

ABJURE – To renounce, or abandon, by or upon oath. See ABJURATION. “The decision of this court in Arthur v. Broadnax, 3 Ala. 557, affirms that if the husband has abjured the state, and remains abroad, the wife, meanwhile trading as a feme sole, could recover on a note which was given to her as such. We must consider the term ‘ abjure,’ as there used, as implying a total abandonment of the state; a departure from the state without the intention of returning, and not a renunciation of one’s country, upon an oath of perpetual banishment, as the term originally implied.”

ABJURATION OP THE REALM – In ancient English law. A renunciation of one’s country, a species of self-imposed banishment, under an oath never to return to the kingdom unless by permission. This was formerly allowed to criminals, as a means of saving their lives, when they had confessed their crimes, and fled to sanctuary. See 4 Bl. Comm. 332.

–Black’s Law 1st Edition

–=–

Note here that government cannot recognize a religious man. This is because a religious man lives a spiritual life, and cannot appear in legal fiction. A religious man simply has no need for a fictional person, needs no citizen-ship, because the religious man requires nor is in want of any benefit from the State. A religious man is invisible to legal, commercial law, except in his recognition that he is self-governing. More to the point, an anarchist is not and never will be considered by government as a free religious man.

Is this religion? No. Is this a recognized status? YES! Fiction cannot touch a man who is self-governing under GOD’s law of nature. But government will not recognize a man who claims some anarchical version of a redefined “natural law” as the same status as a religions man. And so I stand here today with utter confidence that anyone claiming anarchy will never be free from man’s government of them. This is because the claim of anarchy will never be accepted by government as a reason to not be governed by it. To attempt to profess to government that anarchy means anything but what government defines it as is an exercise in futility.

We must be clear here that citizenship and anarchy cannot exist together, except to say that the governing of anarchists is considered as a necessary endeavor by governments around the world. These words are in battle. If you wish to follow the natural law as the law of nature, you must be recognized by the state as a religious man, invoke a civil death (loss of rights, privileges, benefits, and obligations of citizenship), and then actually live your life according to that law of nature in spiritual life. Spiritual living and civil person-hood do not mix, and an anarchist will never be allowed to be free. Only one state of being can exist at one time. Fiction kills nature, as Cain killed Able. For the legal law makes moral actions illegal without permission and license.

Is this Clint’s opinion? No. Clint is not a statist. This is the result of many years of study and due diligence from a once foolish man that used to claim himself an atheist and anarchist because it sounded cool and because gurus told me it was cool. In fact, it is utterly ridiculous, immature, and is a guarantee of being oppressed by government.

An anarchist simply cannot show that they follow a higher law than government creates. A man without higher law must be governed by the lower. This is the disposition of government, not Clint’s statist opinion.

With this understanding, we may read historical quotes with new light, comprehending them not just as religious or political nonsense, but as the key to escaping the tyranny of man’s legal subjection:

–=–

“Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants.”

–William Penn

–=–

“Truth is the most powerful thing in the world,since even fiction itself must be governed by it,
and can only please by its resemblance”

–Anthony Ashley Cooper

–=–

“The success of our admirable system is a conclusive refutation of the theories of those in other countries who maintain that a “favored few” are born to rule and that the mass of mankind must be governed by force. Subject to no arbitrary or hereditary authority, the people are the only sovereigns recognized by our Constitution.”

–James K Polk

–=–

“As regards the first set of dangers, it behooves us to remember that men can never escape being governed. Either they must govern themselves or they must submit to being governed by others. If from lawlessness(anarchy) or fickleness, from folly or self-indulgence, they refuse to govern themselves, then most assuredly in the end they will have to be governed from the outside. They can prevent the need of government from without only by showing that they possess the power of government from within. A sovereign can not make excuses for his failures; a sovereign must accept the responsibility for the exercise of the power that inheres in him; and where, as is true in our Republic, the people are sovereign, then the people must show a sober under standing and a sane and steadfast purpose if they are to preserve that orderly liberty upon which as a foundation every republic must rest

Is it wise to learn how your enemy thinks so as to understand how he considers you? Yes, absolutely.

It was from the ‘Art Of War‘ that we leaned to know our enemy. But as this wolf in sheep’s clothing correctly puts forward here, we are our own worst enemy. Mr. Roosevelt delivered the keys to sovereignty here, telling us that government is only necessary for those who cannot govern themselves. And anarchy IS NOT GOVERNMENT! In fact, the one thing he is not promoting is anarchy. For he exclaims here in so many words that those in the chaos of lawlessness must be governed. Think about that for a moment… Is it really reasonable to expect a government to release you from its subjection if your evidence of being able to self-govern is reliant on being an anarchist – one who is against law and order? Again, try and contemplate your enemy, know it, and defeat it by invoking its adherence its own law and opinions.

Ignorance will surely never accomplish this feat.

More to the point, you should ask yourself why these gurus wish for you to make a profession and affirmation that you are an anarchist? Remember, the law is clear as is the Trivium that he who affirms must prove. Proof of claim. So why would you claim to a government, which seeks to control and squash anarchy, that you are an anarchist while under its rule?

I say again, revolutions are most often planned and controlled, and to revolve is to end up right back where you started under a different title.

Let’s be clear. These citizens promoting a false repackaging of anarchy and claiming it to be in harmony with the natural law are charlatans. They are allowed their speech under law and legal right of citizenship, not because they are actually in a state of anarchy. In other words, they are tolerated (and perhaps hired or promoted) by their own government. But if we stuck them in the middle of North Korea, they’d be flogged and/or dead by morning. At the very least we must comprehend here that in the disposition of the State and the actual statists of government, it will never recognize an “anarchist” as anything but a man that must be governed – a non-religious, unlawful man with no proof of self-governance. And this is because the word anarchy is firmly defined in all sources used by government as lawlessness and chaos, not to mention an opposition to established government.

Am I a statist for saying this? No. Just attempting to define terms so that the reader can make informed choices as to what title he or she might wish to exclaim to a militarized government. The point is that there is a wrong and a right way to confront government, and claiming to be in anarchy is certainly not going to get you very far, for its opinion of anarchy will always be the same.

To quote again the simplistic, specifically undefined definition and fallacious conclusion used by these gurus, both of the alter-egos called “Marc Stevens” and “Mark Passio” quote the same basic non-sequitur, which is to say in so many words that:

“Anarchy = rules but no rulers.”

Most of what these gurus state is logical, but only in a completely prima facie (on the face of it/presumptive) way. In other words, they presume and rely on their followers to presume that their version of anarchy would work, despite absolutely no source or grammar to back the claim. The legal law is ironically also mainly prima facie, standing as a presumption of consent that must be confirmed or rebutted. Logic alone always stands in confusion, a dialectic without source (grammar). This is of course why fallacies are labeled as logical. Because they are logical does not make fallacies correct in their assumtions.

A non-sequitur is a logical fallacy where a stated conclusion is not supported by its premise and therefore the conclusion is arbitrary. It stems from the Latin phrase “it does not follow.”

Merriam Webster’s modern dictionary defines non-sequitur as follows:

NON SEQUITUR – A statement that is not connected in a logical or clear way to anything said before it. 1:An inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically, a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent. 2: A statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said.

–=–

And so the question remains, does “Marc Steven’s” definition of anarchy follow some other source? Or is it truly a non-sequitur as defined above?

After repeated attempts to locate “Marc Steven’s” description of anarchy in a society (state) in history, none could be found. The one example that was quoted was a state of anarcho-capitalism, called the Anarchist Republic of Cospaia, spanning a whole 815 acres (330 hectares) with an average of 300 people at one time, which were totally illiterate except for the parish priest (i.e. a religious society). The reason for its long existence? The Papel States and the Republic of Florence saw great value in having a buffer “state” between its two borders, and so it sat unconquered for centuries at the whim and constraint of two adversarial Peoples (States), the only reason it stood without being utterly conquered. Rome was a republic too for a couple centuries. So I suppose we should include it as an anarchist society as well??? To be clear, I’m not against religious communities of men living under the law of nature in self-governing disposition according to God’s law, I’m against people promoting anarchy as law and as a solution to anything, and who attach anarchy to nature.

When I re-brought this example up and wished to have discourse about Cospaia in the debate, Marc balked and it was not presented in its historical form to show the fallacy of its use as an example of successful anarchy. Surprise, surprise. So in the fake-anarchist’s mind it still stands as “an example of successful anarchy” despite the protection it was granted by two enemies, which both used it for its own purposes. More fallacious rhetoric not based on proper grammar. It was certainly not pure anarchy, for it was a republic (state), and was in a state of anarcho-capitalism.

Anarchy is only chaos. It cannot exist alone except as chaos, without some system of organization attached to it… like satanism for instance. “Do as thou wilt” is not the law of nature!!!

The trick here is to find a way to be recognized as legitimate by governments under international law while living in a society not commercially connected with the already claimed “jurisdiction” it is formed in. In this way, the society is protected from that jurisdiction by showing itself to be a religious society, not one in anarchy of a well-established and protected international law. This is reason and logic applied to satisfy both dispositions, not the unrehearsed fancies of fools.

So back to the question: is the word anarchy in its etymology, as these gurus have claimed, the notion of men having rules but no rulers? And is this word ever implied to mean a state of self-government of men in a society as is purported? Let’s check the books…

From the etymolgoy online website (http://etymonline.com/), here is the result for a word search of “anarchy”.

ANARCHY – 1530s, from French anarchieor directly from Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhia“lack of a leader, the state of people without a government” (in Athens, used of the Year of Thirty Tyrants, 404 B.C., when there was no archon), noun of statefrom anarkhos“rulerless,” from an- “without” (see an- (1)) + arkhos “leader” (see archon). Either the State for ever, crushing individual and local life, taking over in all fields of human activity, bringing with it its wars and its domestic struggles for power, its palace revolutions which only replace one tyrant by another, and inevitably at the end of this development there is … death! Or the destruction of States, and new life starting again in thousands of centers on the principle of the lively initiative of the individual and groups and that of free agreement. The choice lies with you! [Prince Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921)]

ANARCHIC – (Adjective) 1755, chaotic, without order or rule,” from Greek anarkhos “without head or chief” (see anarchy) + -ic. anarchistic (1845) which tends to refer to the political philosophy of anarchism. An older word in this sense was anarchical (1590s). Anarchial is from 1710; Landor used anarchal (1824).

–=–

Is it a non-sequitur fallacy to state that anarchy is merely rules without rulers?

Or is this a misleading notion as to its full comprehension?

Chaos, a leader of the leaderless, a paradoxical word, used of a time when tyrants ruled over men. Is that rules without rulers? Or is the actual definition of anarchy in its true form simply of chaos and confusion?

I wanted to make sure that this was not just a singular happening; believing that the anarchy gurus must have some source for what seems to be a purposeful mistranslation of terms. And so I consulted the dictionaries, legal and common language, so as to possibly discover that there was indeed a state of anarchy or anarchism that might be different than put forward here. This is called due diligence, attempting to prove my own beliefs to be incorrect. It’s the only way to fly…

And here is what I found…

From Merriam Webster’s modern dictionary we read:

ANARCHY – A situation of confusion and wild behavior in which the people in a country, group, organization, etc., are not controlled by rules or laws. 1a:Absence of government. 1b:A state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority. 1c:A utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government. 2a:Absence or denial of any authority or established order. 2b: Absence of order:disorder – not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker> 3:Anarchism.

Examples of ANARCHY:

Anarchy reigned in the empire’s remote provinces.

When the teacher was absent, there was anarchy in the classroom.

Its immigration policies in the last five years have become the envy of those in the West who see in all but the most restrictive laws the specter of terrorism and social anarchy. —Caroline Moorehead, New York Review of Books, 16 Nov. 2006

Fueled by booze and the euphoria of having seen their school win a share of its first … title in 36 years, a mob of Beavers fans hurled itself at the cops, breaching both chains and creating anarchy. —Austin Murphy, Sports Illustrated, 27 Nov. 2000

But by the early 1800s, the mines began to play out, and the colonists challenged the Spanish throne for independence. The Silver Cities survived not only the bloody revolution of 1821 but also the ensuing century of anarchy and bloodshed. —David Baird, Continental, February 1999

The anarchy of the Internet may be daunting for the neophyte, but it differs little from the bibliographical chaos that is the result of five and a half centuries of the printing press. —Fred Lerner, The Story of Libraries, (1945).

Origin of ANARCHY: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchoshaving no ruler, from an- + archos ruler — more at arch-.

First Known Use: 1539

Related to ANARCHY: Synonyms: Lawlessness, misrule.

–=–

Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt…

I can deny a train is coming or I can learn its schedule and get off of its tracks.

Here in our second attempt to justify and support Marc Steven’s and other guru’s modern or “new age” definition of rules but no rulers, we seem to hit a rather painful brick wall. Granted, we do see the “no rulers” citation, but not as a reference to peace and harmony according to some set and followed rules that exist despite rulers. Quite the opposite, we see references to lawlessness and misrule (defining the anarchical reign of criminal tyrants) as opposed to rules despite rulers. And the examples used equate anarchy to a classroom of children without a teacher in chaos (no ruler), the bloodshed caused by anarchy, and a reference to how the virtually unchecked immigration of other cultures and belief systems of those foreign immigrants placed into nativity within the nation of an established government causes anarchy against that established rule and law. America is a perfect example of this, and self-evidently so. We should note that the above reference to a “utopian society” was used also in example, more so as a derogatory description than as the true nature of an actual society in harmony with nature; used here as a seemingly impossible condition or paradox of society and men not found anywhere in history.

So far, according to this definition, we see no correlation of anarchy having the implication of rules without rulers. So far, Marc seems to only fall into the denial category.

Let’s go to some other sources to verify that this is the typical definition applied to the word anarchy.

ANARCHY – [ˈanərkē ] – Noun. A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority: “he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy.” Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal. Synonyms: lawlessness, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection. Antonyms: government, order.

Disorganization is certainly the opposite of the above tenets of the law of nature, sagacity (organization) and reason.

SAGACITY – noun [Latin sagacitas.] 1. Quickness or acuteness of scent; applied to animals. 2. Quickness or acuteness of discernment or penetration; readiness of apprehension; the faculty of readily discerning and distinguishing ideas, and of separating truth from falsehood. Sagacity finds out the intermediate ideas, to discover what connection there is in each link of the chain.

–Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

–=–

Sagacity is a scriptural term of course. You could call a sagacious man a prepper and a conspiracy theorist. Or you could just be one and not respect such demeaning names and titles. The meek, the prepared, shall inherit the Earth. In other words, the sagacious will live in nature, not the legal fiction that is but an open air debtor’s prison. For the Bible tells us to leave the cities, which will be utterly destroyed both morally and physically. Spiritual life. Is that religion? No. Just damn good, already happening advice!

It is important to stop here and notice that the word license is used here as a synonym of anarchism. It is also my own contention as the antithesis to these guru’s arguments that our current governments of each State are not bad because they are actually working according to their own foundational principles of law, but instead are bad because government itself is in a state of anarchy. The agents of government are abusing and acting outside of the law with no punishment for their actions. In other words, confusion and organized chaos in the form of protected crime. The granting of licenses is the action of allowing certain individuals or all of society the authority to do otherwise unlawful things, as in actions and the creation of laws opposed to natural law and opposed to the stated purpose of government. A license is permission to break an established law, thus it is defined as a synonym to anarchy. Congressmen, for instance, are notorious for their insider trading, simply because they had license (from themselves) to do so. In essence, government has outlawed moral actions like marriage and made it illegal without license from the state, while licensing corporations to ravish nature. This is anarchism of any moral law, for no person (individual or charity corporation) can act morally in public without incorporation and license. And nature (God) would certainly never allow license to man to destroy it.

Another example of anarchy in government is its syndicalism, or anarcho-syndicalism. Currently, almost every facet of government is being controlled by private associations, from the non-governmental Democrat and Republican political parties to the corporate Bar Association. Common Core standards, for instance, were created and copyrighted by the 100% private association called the National Governors Association (NGA), and then each governor in his official capacity took those standards back to their prospective State governments and lobbied on behalf of their own NGA to pass Common Core in the legislatures of the States, as a uniform state law. There is also the International Mayors Association and the National Sheriffs Association, to name just a few. In short, every office in government from the treasurer to the common worker has some form of private association or union. This is anarcho-syndicalism. It is anarchy in government, where the functionality of government is reassigned to private hands and associations. Government is not the problem, anarchism in government and its functions is the problem. Laws being written, maintained, and upgraded by corporations and special interest groups and associations is the problem. And the men (agents) in government that allow this against the fundamental law are the problem.

Take the over 100 “uniform laws” of the individual states as a final example. Just where did the Uniform Commercial Code come from, which Marc Stevens recently announced was somehow debunked by his rhetoric? Well… it didn’t originate from “government.”

A well-sourced, easily verifiable Wikipedia entry tells us about it:

The Uniform Law Commission (ULC) – (also called the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws) is a non-profit, unincorporated association. Established in 1892, the ULC provides states with legislation that brings clarity and stability to critical areas of state statutory law. The ULC researches, drafts, and promotes enactment of uniform acts in areas of state law where uniformity is desirable and practical. The ULC headquarters are in Chicago, Illinois.

The ULC consists of approximately 350 commissioners appointed by each state, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands. All of its members are lawyers, who may also serve as legislators, judges, or legal scholars. Each is appointed to the Commission by the government of their respective state or territory.

Every ULC commissioner must be an attorney. Each jurisdiction determines the method of appointment and its number of commissioners. In most states, the governor appoints the state’s commissioners to serve a specified term. In a few states, ULC commissioners serve at the will of the appointing authority and have no specific term. ULC commissioners are volunteers who do not receive salaries or other compensation for their public service.

The ULC is best known for its work on the landmark Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), drafted in conjunction with the American Law Institute.

Since the ULC first convened in 1892, it has produced more than 300 uniform acts. These acts focus on commercial law, family and domestic relations law, estates, probate and trusts, real estate, alternate dispute resolution, and much more. Among the ULC’s most widely adopted acts are the Uniform Commercial Code, the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement act, the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, and the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act.

The current ULC President is Harriet Lansing of St. Paul, Minnesota, the Chair of the ULC’s Executive Committee is Richard Cassidy of Burlington, Vermont, and the Chair of the Scope and Program Committee is Anita Ramasastry of Seattle, Washington. Michael Houghton of Wilmington, Deleware is the Immediate Past President…

“It must be emphasized that the [ULC] can only propose—no uniform law is effective until a state legislature adopts it.” Frequently, a state will make substantial variations when adopting a uniform act…

Along side of the ULC is the American Law Institute. Just because American is in its name, does not mean that it is governmental! Again we see the anarchism of syndicalism being used to literally change and restate the laws to our government officials by a private association.

Again from the sourced Wikipedia article:

The American Law Institute (ALI) was established in 1923 to promote the clarification and simplification of United States common law and its adaptation to changing social needs. The ALI drafts, approves, and publishes Restatements of the Law,Principles of the Law, model codes, and other proposals for law reform. The ALI is headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, near the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

History – The American Law Institute was founded in 1923 on the initiative of William Draper Lewis, Dean of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, following a study by a group of prominent American judges, lawyers, and teachers who sought to address the uncertain and complex nature of early 20th century American law. According to the “Committee on the Establishment of a Permanent Organization for the Improvement of the Law,” part of the law’s uncertainty stemmed from the lack of agreement on fundamental principles of the common-law system, while the law’s complexity was attributed to the numerous variations within different jurisdictions. The Committee recommended that a perpetual society be formed to improve the law and the administration of justice in a scholarly and scientific manner.

–=–

***Author’s note: Social means public, anti-private property, as in personhood as citizenship. See dictionaries. To reform/reshape the foundation of law is to cause anarchy in government, as anarcho-socialism through sindicalism (by private associations and universities). Civil law is strict, standing above and not in regard to the natural law, which is not strictly defined. Thus these attorneys are creating law in an anarchist state against nature and its laws, and it only applies to the public citizenship that are acting in the artifice of fictional personhood, which is also against natural law. If one voluntarily takes benefits and status from a government, then the strict law of admiralty and maritime commerce states that one must also accept voluntarily the obligations that attend the benefit. A fiction cannot claim nature, any more than a citizen can claim to be living in anarchy. And Marc Stevens (A.K.A.) would not be going to court unless he was summoned there by his public name as a citizen. The law not only enslaves its subjects to its strict rule, but allows privileged individuals to be above the law through license (anarchism) from any law.

SRICTI JURIS – Latin. Of strict right or law; according to strict law. “A license is a thing stricti juris; a privilege whicha man does not possess by his own right, but it is conceded to him as an indulgence, and therefore it is to be strictly observed.

STRICTISSIMI JURIS – Latin. Of the strictest right of law. “Licenses being matter of special indulgence, the application of them was formerly strictissimi juris.

STRICTO JURE – Latin. In strict law.

STRICTUM JUS – Latin. Strict right or law; the rigor of the law as distinguished from equity.

–All from Black’s Law 4rth Edition.

EQUITABLE – That which is in conformity to the natural law. Wolff, Inst. 83.

–Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856.

–=–

This is to say that licenses are now given socially, through strict law, that men acting in citizenship have a general license to break the natural law as a foundation of the legal law – a benefit of citizenship. His actions are legal, not moral. He asks what is legal, not what is right. And special licenses (as in species, special, according to title or status) are granted to special (species of/titled) persons (artifice). This is of course anarchy towards natural law, and necessarily towards written law (because license trumps law), ans so we must comprehend that this action of licensing is also an intent and motive of anarchism towards government’s foundational origins and generally adhered to ancient principles (maxims).

In short, the laws are being created by outside influences to replace anciently respected foundational principles and laws. This is anarchy in its syndicalist form.

American Law Institute article continued…

History… The organization was incorporated on February 23, 1923, at a meeting called by the Committee in the auditorium of Memorial Continental Hall in Washington D.C. According to ALI’sCertificate of Incorporation, its purpose is “to promote the clarification and simplification of the law and its better adaptation to social needs, to secure the better administration of justice, and to encourage and carry on scholarly and scgientific leal work“. (Author’s note: Legal means against equity and natural law, as the formation of strict law for fictional persons.)

Membership – Membership in the American Law Institute is limited to 3,000 elected members who are judges, lawyers, and legal scholars from a wide range of practice areas, from all areas of the United States and from many foreign countries. The total membership of more than 4,200 includes ex officio members and life members who, after 25 years as an elected member, are no longer required to pay dues. New members must be proposed by an existing member, who writes a letter of recommendation, and seconded by two others. Proposals are evaluated by a Membership Committee that selects members based on several factors, including professional achievement, personal character, and demonstrated interest in improving the law.

(Author’s note: Government is not involved in the selection process, making this membership association anarchistic to government, yet approved and allowed by government, as all non-governmental-private associations or NGO’s are.)

ALI members are obligated to actively support the work of the Institute, including attending Annual Meetings and other project conferences, joining Members Consultative Groups for Institute projects, and submitting comments on project drafts. Members are asked to write, speak, and vote on the basis of their own personal and professional convictions, without regard to client interests, so as to maintain ALI’s respected reputation for thoughtful and impartial analysis.

Governance – The Institute is governed by its Council, a volunteer board of directors that oversees the management of ALI’s business and projects. Having no fewer than 42 and no more than 65 members, the Council consists oflawyers, judges, and academics, and reflects a broad range of specialties and experiences. Council members are elected from the Institute membership for a term of five years, and can be renominated for an additional two terms. Under the current rules, a Council member can request emeritus status upon reaching 70 years of age; for having served on the council for at least ten consecutive years; or for having served for three terms in total. The ALI Council ordinarily meets in May, October, and January.

Restatements of the Law – The Institute’s first endeavor upon formation was a comprehensive restatement of basic legal subjects that would inform judges and lawyers what the law was. This effort produced what ALI is best known for: the Restatement of the Law. Between 1923 and 1944, Restatements of the Law were developed for Agency, Conflict of Laws, Contracts, Judgments, Property, Restitution, Security, Torts, and Trusts. In 1952, the Institute started Restatement Second — updates of the original Restatements with new analyses and concepts with and expanded authorities. A Restatement on Foreign Relations Law of the United States was also undertaken.

The third series of Restatements was started in 1987 with a new Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States. The Restatement Third now includes volumes on Agency, the Law Governing Lawyers, Property (Mortgages, Servitudes, Wills and Other Donative Transfers), Restitution and Unjust Enrichment, Suretyship and Guaranty, Torts(Products Liability, Apportionment of Liability, and Physical and Emotional Harm), and Unfair Competition. New Restatement projects on Economic Torts, Employment Law, Trusts, and the U.S. Law of International Commercial Arbitration are currently underway as part of the Restatement Third series.

Restatements are essentially codifications of case law, common law judge-made doctrines that develop gradually over time because of the principle of stare decisis. Although Restatements are not binding authority in and of themselves, they are highly persuasive because they are formulated over several years with extensive input from law professors, practicing attorneys, and judges. They are meant to reflect the consensus of the American legal community as to what the law is (and in some areas, what it should become). All told, the Restatement of the Law is one of the most respected and well-used sources of secondary authority, covering nearly every area of common law.

Principles of the Law – Beginning with the Principles of Corporate Governance(governance of corporations as artificial persons) (issued in 1994), the American Law Institute has more recently undertaken intensive studies of areas of law thought to need reform. This type of analysis typically results in a publication that recommends changes in the law. Principles of the Law issued so far include volumes on Aggregate Litigation (2010), Family Dissolution (2002), Intellectual Property (2008), Software Contracts (2010), Transnational Civil Procedure (2006; cosponsored by UNIDROIT), and Transnational Insolvency: Cooperation Among the NATA Countries (2003). Work in the Principles of the Law series continues with projects covering Corporate Compliance, Data Privacy, Election Law, and Government Ethics.

Model Codes –Another important area of the Institute’s work is model statutory codification. ALI code projects have included model acts dealing with air flight, criminal procedure, evidence, federal securities law, land development, pre-arraignment procedure, and property. Some of these projects were undertaken jointly with theNational Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL).

The chief joint ALI-NCCUSL project is the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which the Institute has been developing and revising with the National Conference since the 1940s. First published in 1952, the UCC is one of a number of uniform acts that have been promulgated in conjunction with efforts to harmonize the law of sales and other commercial transactions in all 50 states within the United States of America. The Uniform Commercial Code is generally viewed as one of the most important developments in American law, having been enacted (with local adaptations) in almost every jurisdiction.

The Model Penal Code (MPC) is another ALI statutory formulation that has been widely accepted throughout the United States. Adopted by the Institute membership in 1962 after twelve years of drafting and development, the Code’s purpose was to stimulate and assist legislatures in making an effort to update and standardize the penal law of the United States. Primary responsibility for criminal law lies with the individual states, and such national efforts work to produce similar laws in different jurisdictions. The standard they used to make a determination of what the penal code should be was one of “contemporary reasoned judgment” — meaning what a reasoned person at the time of the development of the MPC would judge the penal law to do. The Chief Reporter for this undertaking was Herbert Wechler, who later became a Director of the Institute.

Two current ALI projects will revise portions of the Model Penal Code. One focuses on sentencing provisions in light of the many changes in sentencing philosophy and practice that have taken place since the Code was developed in the 1950s and 1960s. The second focuses on sexual assault and related offenses and will re-examine Article 213 of the Model Penal Code, which was ahead of its time when approved by the ALI in 1962, but is now outdated and no longer a reliable guide for legislatures and courts.

–=–

This is legalized anarchy, fully supported by wined and dined (lobbied) legislators. When the elected government no longer makes its own determinations on what law is, and instead allows private usurper organizations to reconstruct, reform, and fundamentally alter the very principles which are the foundation of law, then that government is in a state of anarchy; confusion in government; organized criminal chaos.

Here we see that everything the citizen-ship does is considered in commerce. Every action taken by a commercial citizen of the United States jurisdiction is an act of commerce (a man acting in agency to the United States, operating its fictional person in interstate commerce). The very existence of citizenship is ONLY of a commercial nature. This is not the authors opinion, but is the nature of U.S. citizenship. A U.S. citizen is a domicile of the United States jurisdiction, and noted to be “found” therein. The word found is a seaman’s term referring to treasure. The word treasure means thesaurus. Words, especially names (proper nouns), are the treasure of government. For words hold power and construct secrets…

A U.S. citizen only has a foreign residence status in the State where he has his dwelling. Therefore, all actions taken by the United States citizen are considered as interstate commerce (between the United States and the State, for a U.S. citizen is a foreigner in any other “State”), which is why license and permit is needed for things like driving under the traffic code. The word traffic is a synonym for commerce. Trafficking, especially human trafficking, is certainly commerce. For all U.S. citizens, the United States stands as their principal, while the State stands as a third party to that commercial agency. The constitution does not apply to U.S. citizens, only to private citizens of each State, for they are private citizens of only their State, not of or in the United States. The word State means People. A U.S. citizen is not considered as one of the “We, the People” of the 50 States united, which are in compact with the United States as a body corporate. A U.S. citizen is a legal creation of the United States proper, not of any individual State, and is a fictional person-hood (title of nobility) thereof. The creator controls the creation as the Maxims of law declare. A creation of government, a citizenship, is property of government. Men only use their person-hood (status/surname) for commercial activity. We serve no other purpose for being in a State than as a commercial entity if we are not one of the People that is the individual State.

Though I will not speak further to this, it is verifiable and is verified by myself in triplicate in my upcoming work (book). Your belief in this information is not required here, but your due diligence is. Your knowledge of these facts is not required by law, but the fact that you participate voluntarily and receive benefits through the surname and number is evidence of tacit contract. Again, this is not Clint’s statist opinion, this is Clint trying to show you your own chains by explaining the disposition of the State.

It is important to note here that these BAR Association lawyers, a subdivision of the International Bar Association, are literally attempting and succeeding in altering the very foundational principles or maxims of law. Bouvier defines the word Maxim as such:

MAXIM –

An established principle or proposition. A principle of law universally admitted, as being just and consonant With reason.

Maxims in law are somewhat like axioms ingeometry. 1 Bl. Com. 68. They are principles and authorities, and part of the general customs or common law of the land; and are of the same strength as acts of parliament, when the judges have determined what is a maxim; whichbelongs to the judges and not the jury. Terms de Ley; Doct. & Stud. Dial. 1, c. 8. Maxims of the law are holden for law, and all other cases that may be applied to them shall be taken for granted. 1 Inst. 11. 67; 4 Rep. See 1 Com. c. 68; Plowd. 27, b.

The application of the maxim to the case before the court, is generally the only difficulty. The true method of making the application is to ascertain how the maxim arose, and to consider whether the case to which it is applied is of the same character, or whether it is an exception to an apparently general rule.

The alterations of any of the maxims of the common law are dangerous. 2 Inst. 210…

–=–

The ancient wisdom of these maxims as the foundation of law stem from several sources, not the least important are the various scriptures of history. The word scripture, as a term, simply means ancient knowledge. One must not confuse the syndicalist doctrines of the various corporate religions with the words of the scriptures. Church and scripture are not related. And scripture comes from many sources, most importantly, from the correctly read Bible in its legal and anti-legal intent. For the Bible is only the story of man’s fall into legal fiction person-hood (mammon). A fool who reads the Bible in the common language remains a fool. The wise become wiser only because they know the legal language (terms of art) to which the Bible scriptures are to be utilized. And wise-men, unfortunately, are historically liars and thieves, for only the priest-class was allowed to be literate. Like the Trivium in its classical form, as Marc Stevens and other anarchy gurus display, the Bible too can be used as a weapon against the ignorant and unlearned. The entire legal, commercial structure is based on the voluntary ignorance of its unwitting citizensips as to the legal language that makes up the legal law. In fact, government counts on its subject’s ignorance to garner their tacit consent.

But don’t just take my word for it…

VOLUNTARY IGNORANCE – This exists where a party might, by taking reasonable pains, have acquired the necessary knowledge, but has neglected to do so.

–Black’s Law 1st Edition

–=–

Some don’t like my rhetoric because I tell them that they are their own worst enemy, and that they need to take responsibility for themselves and learn by themselves. Most would rather listen to gurus pillow-sit them and say exactly what they want to hear. No individual responsibility.

For those actually interested in knowledge, who know or are starting to realize that nothing worth doing, learning, or mastering is easy, I recommend that you view my exhaustive research on anarcho-syndicalism in government and especially as “education” at these two sources:

When the United States and uniform laws of the States are being created by outside influences, including duel-citizens of foreign states, by organizations with international ties, and by “foreign countries” as is stated above, this is truly a state of anarchy within government. But let us continue to define anarchy from various independent sources, looking for some verification for the definition put forward by the apparently mislead, possibly controlled opposition, modern anarchy movement:

ANARCHY – noun [Gr. rule.] Want of government; a state of society, when there is no law or supreme power, or when the laws are not efficient, and individuals do what they please with impunity; political confusion.

ANARCHIST – noun – An anarch; one who excites revolt, or promotes disorder in a state.

ANARCH – noun [See Anarchy.] The author of confusion; one who excites revolt.

ARCH –adjective [Latin arcus, a bow; Eng. rogue.] Cunning; sly; shrewd; waggish; mischievous for sport; mirthful; as we say in popular language, roguish; as an arch lad. adjective Used also in composition. [Gr. chief.] Chief; of the first class; principal; as, an arch deed. Shakespeare uses this word as a noun; ‘My worthy arch and patrons; ‘ but the use is not authorized.

–Webster’s 1828 Dictionary Of The English Language

–=–

While there is no reference to the word archon here, let us understand clearly this word and its use in the Greek, knowing that anarchy in the form used by modern gurus is being referenced from a specific time and place where a certain people of Greece revolted against the specific “Archons” of the time. This is a grammatical and historical logical fallacy on behalf of these gurus, and should be considered as such in regard to anarchy’s true definition. For in a voluntary society such as ours, we have no traditional archons, no princes, no kings… and the legislature is not appointed by princes or kings. Our current legislature and judges sit only over citizenships of the United States, not the private People (States) as a sovereignty. Our judges and legislature rule only over commercial fictions of law – persons acting in commercial citizen-ship with us attached in surety. Voluntary ignorance reigns, for no man in his right mind (compos mentis) would voluntarily be a citizen under Title 42, Section 1981.

Note that a full breakdown of these facts will be in my massive tome of research, the non-commercial work being called STRAWMAN: The Real Story of Your Artificial Person, to be released sometime this year. Keep updated on its release (will always be available to download for free or in printed “book” form) here: http://www.strawmanstory.info/

ARCHON – noun [Gr. a prince.] The archons in Greece were chief magistrates chosen, after the death of Codrus, from the most illustrious families, to superintend civil and religious concerns. They were nine in number; the first was properly the archon; the second was called king; the third, polemarch, or general of the forces. The other six were called thesmothetae, or legislators.

–Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

–=–

The word thesmothetae (θεσμοθέται) in the Greek was a name of the six junior “archons” at Athens, on which devolved the administration of specific parts of the law. So applying it to our current system with this specific, antiquated purpose is a bit disingenuous to say the least.

ANARCHY – The destruction of government; lawlessness; the absence of all political government; by extension, confusion in government. See 122 111. 253.

–Black’s ‘Law 1st Edition’

–=–

ANARCHY – The absence of government; a state of society in which there is no law or supreme power. “If the conspiracy had for its object the destruction of the law and government, it had for its object the bringing about of practical anarchy. And when murder has resulted from the conspiracy and the perpetrators are on trial for the crime, whether or not they were anarchists may be a proper circumstance to be considered in connection with other circumstances, with a view, of showing what connection, if any, they had with the conspiracy and what were their purposes in joining it.” See further as to case cited, Accessary; Challenge; Character; Charge; Conspiracy; Courts, United States; Criminate; Doubt, Reasonable; Jury; Malice; Opinion.

–William C Anderson’s ‘A Dictionary of Law’

–=–

ANARCHY – The absence of all political government; by extension, it signifies confusion in government.

–Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856 Edition

–=–

So what does confusion mean then? Is it the common meaning or the legal? Is it two words, a combination of con and fusion (against fusion)? Is it a confidence game? Is it of Latin origin? Inquiring minds want to know!

Let’s consult Webster. Notice the general and legal terminology:

CONFUSION – Noun 1. In a general sense, a mixture of several things promiscuously; hence, disorder; irregularity; as the confusion of tongues at Babel. 2. Tumult; want of order in society. The whole city was filled with confusion.Acts 19:29. God is not the author of confusion. 1 Corinthians 14:33. 3. A blending or confounding; indistinct combination; opposed to distinctness or perspicuity; as a confusion of ideas. 4. Abashment; shame. O Lord, let me never be put to confusion. Psalms 71:1. We lie in shame and our confusion covereth us. Jeremiah 3:25. 5. Astonishment; agitation; perturbation; distraction of mind. Confusion dwelt in every face. 6. Overthrow; defeat; ruin. The makers of idols shall go to confusion together. Isaiah 45:16. 7. A shameful blending of natures, a shocking crime. Leviticus 18:23, 20:12.

–Webster’s 1828 Dictionary Of English Language

–=–

Why all the scriptural references? Because the Bible must be read in the legal language, the language of the king (government) who transliterated and rewrote it, and then officially vested it into the Crown corporation as law. If that’s not logical I don’t know what is. The reference that God is not the author of confusion is a reference to the natural law, to God as nature’s design and self-evident truth. Proper grammar, it should go without saying here, certainly defeats the confusion offered by anarchs. And the scriptural reference to a blending of natures refers to mixing the christian, given name with the fictional state surname, or any other blending of the legal realm with the natural.

We demonize often what we simply do not understand, like a movie critic giving a thumbs down to a movie he did not see. The scriptures are not a religion, and religious doctrine of corporations called churches is certainly not the Bible. Read it, and read it correctly, as law. The images and false idols of the church only serve to confuse the true message of the Bible.

Was Noah Webster a government agent as the anarchist’s over at the No-State Project suggest? Let’s see what he has to say…

–=–

“Every civil government is based upon some religion or philosophy of life. Education in a nation will propagate the religion of that nation. In America, the foundational religion was Christianity. And it was sown in the hearts of Americans through the home and private and public schools for centuries. Our liberty, growth, and prosperity was the result of a Biblical philosophy of life. Our continued freedom and success is dependent on our educating the youth of America in the principles of Christianity.”

–Noah Webster

–=–

“The heart should be cultivated with more assiduity than the head.”

–Noah Webster

–=–

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”

–Noah Webster

–=–

“The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scripture ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws.”

–Noah Webster

–=–

“In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed… No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”

–Noah Webster

–=–

“A pure democracy is generally a very bad government, It is often the most tyrannical government on earth; for a multitude is often rash, and will not hear reason.”

–Noah Webster

–=–

“Every child in America should be acquainted with his own country. He should read books that furnish him with ideas that will be useful to him in life and practice. As soon as he opens his lips, he should rehearse the history of his own country.”

–Noah Webster

–=–

“The education of youth should be watched with the most scrupulous attention. [I]t is much easier to introduce and establish an effectual system … than to correct by penal statutes the ill effects of a bad system. … The education of youth … lays the foundations on which both law and gospel rest for success.”

–Noah Webster

–=–

It this is statism… count me in!

To demonize Webster is only to use unfounded fallacy to discredit a most respected author.

But if you like, the “ex-” Satanist Passio has a different view of the Bible, which should not be surprising. For the adversary is confounded by scripture…

–=–

“For such are false apostles, deceitful workers,
transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.And no marvel; for Satan himself is
transformed into an angel of light.”

–2 Corinthians 11: 13-14, KJB

–=–

“George Washington the founder of this country was the first Grand Master of Masons’ of this commonwealth compromising the original thirteen States of this Land of Liberty founded on the principles of Brotherly Love, Faith, Hope and Charity, the vital breath of which is “Individual Liberty” and an equal opportunity to all of its citizens. Of the twenty-nine Major Generals in Washington’s army twenty four were master masons, of the thirty seven Brigadiers, thirty seven were Master Masons, proving that this “Land of Liberty” was founded by Master Masons. Now as then, masonry’s challenge is the Holy Bible, its teachings from the center to circumference symbols of the everlasting… Of fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence, fifty-three were Master Masons.”

–Holy Masonic Bible Red Letter Edition, KJV (1942)

–=–

The word satan simply means adversary. The church doctrine and scary images of personification and anthropomorphism have nothing to do with the scriptural meaning of this simple word. LEGAL FICTION IS ADVERSARIAL TO NATURE, AND MAN’s LAW IS ADVERSARIAL TO THE NATURAL LAW.

Think you know what liberty and freedom means in the legal parlance? Guess again. For a rat has liberty and freedom inside its cage, just as a prisoner has liberty in his cell. Stop here and look these terms up, and know then that their use in common language is not the same as in the king’s language.

This quote from the Masonic Bible regarding the Bible as Masonry’s obstacle is was what made me read the Bible, instead of just poo-pooing it. And the knowledge gained has been priceless. For if the teachings of the scriptures are such a great challenge to the flourishing of masonry, who would not seek out that knowledge? But to read the Bible, we must read it figuratively in the legal cipher.

You might also ask the question why the most subversive book to the State and Church is so easily accessible to anyone who seeks it, in every hotel room and given free by every corporate church under the State? Perhaps it’s because they know we can’t actually read or decipher it because of our voluntary ignorance of its language?

Ignore these warnings from the source of principles and natural law at your own peril, as any good anarchist or satanist (adversary) will wish you to do. And by the way, the christ character was not an anarchist. That is patently false and ridiculous for the learned seeker and researcher. Are the Ten Commandments anarchy? Does it really make logical sense that the scriptures describe anarchy as we have now defined it, as lawlessness? Bibles are a dime a dozen, placed in every hotel room, because the powers that be are simply not afraid that we will read them. We do not have the deciphering language of the legal terms to actually read it for what it is. For the word common means goyim. So the secrets stay hidden in plain sight, under the cipher of language code.

Let us explore one last source, that being the highly respected Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition (1989):

ANARCHY – (ˈænəkɪ) [ad. Gr. ἀναρχία, n. of state f. ἄναρχ-οςwithout a chief or head, f. ἀν priv. + ἀρχός leader, chief. The word was also adopted in med.L. anarchia, and Fr. anarchie (Cotgr. 1611), from one or other of which the Eng. may have been immediately taken.] 1.a. Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder. 1539 Taverner Erasm. Prov. (1552) 43 This unleful lyberty or lycence of the multytude is called an Anarchie. 1605 Bacon Adv. Learn. ii. xxiii. §36 (1873) 241 Pompey‥made it his design‥to cast the state into an absolute anarchy and confusion. 1664 H. More Myst. Iniq. 219 A Polity without an Head‥would not be a Polity, but Anarchy. 1796 Burke Corr. IV. 389 Except in cases of direct war, whenever government abandons law, it proclaims anarchy. 1840 Carlyle Heroes (1858) 277 Without sovereigns, true sovereigns, temporal and spiritual, I see nothing possible but an anarchy; the hatefullest of things. 1878 Lecky Eng. in 18th C. I. i. 12 William threatened at once to retire to Holland and leave the country to anarchy. 1.b. A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without implication of disorder). 1850 Eclectic Rev. XCI. 167 Confessions of an Anarchist.‥ Proudhon proceeds‥that ‘all men are equal and free. Society is, therefore, by nature and destination, autonomic‥there is no government’.‥ We see nothing a-head that warrants us in supposing that man is about to be regenerated; and, for the present, must pronounce anarchy to be a delightful dream! 1884 Rae Contemp. Socialism vii. 281 This idea of a ‘genial anarchy’‥has always been the favourite social remedy of the Russian revolutionary party. 1889 W. Donisthorpe Individualism 282 Scientific anarchy is‥the end towards which society is moving. 1892 Daily News 27 Apr. 5/8 Anarchy means the placing in common of all this world’s riches to allow each to consume according to his needs. Anarchy is a great family where each will be protected by all and will take whatever he requires. 2.2 transf. Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any sphere. a.2.a gen. 1667 Milton P.L. x. 283 The waste Wide Anarchie of Chaos. 1821 Byron Sardan. i. ii. (1868) 356 The satraps uncontroll’d, the gods unworshipped, And all things in the anarchy of sloth. 1831 Brewster Newton (1855) II. xix. 205 Some of the provincial mints were in a state of anarchy. 1959 Daily Tel. 23 Feb. 10/5 The spirit of anarchy today current in the visual arts. Ibid., A form of emotional anarchy even more destructive of talent than the slovenly disregard of technique. 2.b Non-recognition of moral law; moral disorder. 1656 Cowley Chronicle ix, Thousand worse Passions then possest The Inter-regnum of my Breast. Bless me from such an Anarchy! 1713 Steele Englishm. No. 7. 44 The Licentious are in a State of barbarous Anarchy. 1875 Hamerton Intell. Life vi. ii. 203 A moral anarchy difficult to conceive. c.2.c Unsettledness or conflict of opinion. a 1661 Fuller in Webster, There being then‥an anarchy, as I may term it, in authors and their reckoning of years. 1719 Young Revenge iv. i, No more I’ll bear this battle of the mind, This inward anarchy. 1754 Chesterfield in Boswell Johnson (1816) I. 237 Our language is, at present, in a state of anarchy. 1842 W. Grove Corr. Phys. Forces 3 An anarchy of thought,—a perpetuity of mental revolutions.

ANARCHO-SYNDICALISM – (æˌnɑːkəʊ ˈsɪndɪkəlɪz(ə)m) [comb. form. of anarchy + syndicalism.] = syndicalism. So aˌnarcho-syndicalist n., = syndicalist; also as adj. [1913 J. A. Estey Revolutionary Syndicalism i. 31 Jaurès‥was throwing them back into Anarchist-Syndicalism.] 1934 in Webster. 1937 A. Koestler Spanish Test. i. ii. 49 The party and Trades Union of the Anarchists and Anarcho-syndicalists. 1938 Ann. Reg. 1937 241 Anarcho⁓syndicalist opposition was forced underground. 1940 H. Read Philos. Anarchism iv. 28 Whatever may be the merits and demerits of the anarcho-syndicalist system, it can and does work. 1949 J. S. Schapiro Liberalism xiv. 362 Proudhon has been exalted as the father of anarchosyndicalism. 1955 H. Hodgkinson Doubletalk 12 Anarcho-syndicalism, or direct action by anarchist factory workers, is equally anathema (abomination, outrage). Ibid., The anarcho-syndicalists carry their treacherous activities under the banner of the ‘protection of the rights of the individual and his free development’.

ANARCHIZE – Verb (ˈænəkaɪz) [f. Gr. ἄναρχ-ος (see anarch) + -ize; cf. monarchize and mod.Fr. anarchiser.] To render anarchic, reduce to anarchy; to destroy the settled order of. 1800 Coleridge Own Times I. 263 That Suwarrow, though he had rescued the North of Italy from its invaders, should have pillaged and anarchised it. 1815 T. Jefferson Writ. (1830) IV. 248 To anarchize by gold the government he could not overthrow by arms.

Is there really any hint that anarchy is ever considered as a good thing?

Are you really going to abandon reason by abandoning all of these definitions for Marc Steven’s rules but no rulers?

Notice that the anarcho-syndaclist’s false-flag banner is as the protection of individual rights? Sound familiar?

In final consideration as to the actual definition and etymology of the word anarchy, it seems that no matter where we look, be it a legal, etymological, or common language dictionary, the definitions are always the same. It seems, in other words, that the only source for this modern new age definition of anarchy comes from modern gurus like Frank Rizzo (A.K.A. Marc Stevens), supposedly ex-satanist Mark Thocher (A.K.A. Mark Passio – the word Passio is defined as an old English word pannage, referring to “feed for hogs or swine,” which this author seriously doubts is mere coincidence), and other adversarial preachers of anarchy as a solution to government as opposed to the obvious problem of and within government, chaos within and without, even as it stands helpless in the confusion of syndicalist anarchy!

–=–To Be Or Not To Be:Order -vs- Chaos–=–

You cannot serve two masters...

I suppose of all the complaints I have about this so-called anarchy movement, it would be the same complaint I have about corporate Christianity – either act like an anarchist or stop pretending to be one. Likewise, either act like a follower of christ or stop claiming to be christian.

Simply talking about or believing in anarchy doesn’t make you anarchist. All these gurus are in a citizenship with their prospective governments. They talk a big game, then drive home in commerce in persona. They receive benefits from government and so are bound in person to government’s legal codes. They have seemingly found something that actually works in the court system, though it has nothing to do with anarchy, and therefore state that they do know what they are doing in court.

To explain what Marc Steven’s system accomplishes, let’s compare it to something most of us can relate to. Walmart.

Walmart, like the commercial court system, is a place of business. It only operates in commerce. Nothing more, nothing less. So too is the commercial court system. A man has but one purpose to appear in court, and that is to appear in U.S. person or as the registered agent to the U.S. person to allow the United States admiralty court to administrate their commercial activity. A man has no other purpose for entering into a publiccourtroom except to appear in a publiccapacity, in a fiction of citizen-ship (a commercial vessel) or as the agent (attorney) for that person. Thus, when Marc Stevens goes to court, he is appearing not as his alter-ego radio personality “Marc Stevens,” but as a fictional person of government with first name Frank and the last (surname) name Rizzo. Frank Rizzo is the name of a citizen-ship of the United States. It is a fictional corporate entity (an incorporation of the christian or given name and the surname), which is further verified by Franks numbers, legal address, and other identifying marks and signs (I.D.) that show him to be a beast of burden (citizen) of the State. The court will not hear “Marc Stevens” because “Marc Stevens” cannot appear in court. “Marc Stevens” is not a person of the Untied States. “Marc Stevens” doesn’t exist except as Frank Rizzo’s pretend radio voice personality and alter ego.

How do I know who Frank Rizzo is?

When I held a conference in Salt Lake County I invited “Marc Stevens” to speak. The only way that I could get him here was to make an airline reservation under the legal name “Frank Rizzo,” so that he could show his commercial identification and use the benefit of legal status (personhood) to board the plane in his commercial capacity as a citizen of the United States. Does that sound like an anarchist to you? What I distinctly remember though was his specific and seemingly odd request at the time that I personally do not speak of his “real name” to any of the other speakers, especially to one Walter Burien. I did as requested, and covered up the nature of his false-identity.

I refuse to do this anymore…

Here is the promo video we did for the conference, with the above names mentioned:

–=–

The conference itself went off without a hitch. But the attendance was next to nothing, since I was unknown and had next to no national support and absolutely no local support. So it was a successful failure to be sure, humbling and teaching me many lessons that I value greatly. As with many fools, I lost my shirt to throw that conference in support of a few gurus. But it was a necessary life lesson and an inside look into the guru circuit.

Remind me to tell you the story of Sheriff Mack and the hairspray debacle some time. Priceless!

Humorously, I now realize that having Marc Stevens speak at a conference called “Axiom” was a ridiculous oxymoron. I couldn’t even debate old Frank because he could not agree to the axiom that government even exists! An axiom [ak-see-uhm] is defined as a self-evident truth; a universally accepted principle or rule.

Strangely enough and in ever more confusion, Marc Stevens promotes what he calls the “No-State Project.” In our interview, he didn’t quite understand what a State actually was. Of course the fact that he wishes to have no states would certainly imply that Marc must believe that the State and its government already exists. Why else would someone be against the notion of a State unless the State exists? How can the leader of the No-State Project claim that a state of government doesn’t exist?

Just asking…

As a self-correction in disclaimer, I accidentally used the name Calvin DeWitt as Frank’s actual name, as Calvin seems to post, speak, insult, and use rhetoric at times as if he is Marc Stevens. I suppose this makes sense since nobody acutally is “Marc Stevens.” My mistake. I remembered the dualism of names, not the actual proper “legal” name. My sincere apologies for that. Of course my mistake in memory and therefore in rhetoric will be used in fallacious tones to poison my well, and the fake name will be somehow justified as such. So be it.

Why is this important?

A man afraid of his own name…

–=–

“A nickname is the hardest stone that the devil can throw at a man.”~Author unknown, quoted by William Hazlitt

–=–

“You have but to know an object by its proper name for it to lose its dangerous magic.”~Elias Canetti

–=–

“[I]t is a sneaking piece of cowardice for Authors to put feigned names to their works, as if like Bastards of their Brain they were afraid to own them.”
~Desiderius Erasmus, translated from Latin

–=–

“Names are an important key to what a society values. Anthropologists recognize naming as ‘one of the chief methods for imposing order on perception.'”
~David S. Slawson

–=–

“If names are not correct, language will not be in accordance with the truth of things.”
~Confucius

–=–

But I digress… Back to the Walmart analogy.

The court is merely a business. Its operation and profitability relies upon a mass of illiterate men lining up as if in line to check out, only to be unwittingly exacted and extorted due to their lack of the legal language and process – a “mass of illiterates” (the definition by Webster of common people) that cannot defend themselves because they are non compos mentis (not of right mind). They exude their voluntary ignorance as the commercial court system sucks in their administrative fees and penalties like a sponge. After all, that is their legal right…

So how is this like Walmart?

If the mass of illiterates (their definition, not mine) would do their due diligence, they would comprehend that Walmart is a grocer.

So what you say? You love your “friendly neighborhood” grocer?

This word is, as I have come to realize, based on illiteracy and voluntary ignorance of the legal terminology that binds us in the tacit contract of citizenship. And so we participate in an act that is unlawful, but which is licensed by government. In other words, the anarchy of organized crime.

GROCER – In old English law, a merchant or trader who engrossed all vendible merchandise; an engrosser.

ENGROSS – …In old English law. To buy up so much of a commodity on the market as to obtain a monopoly and sell again at a forced price.

ENGROSSER – One who purchases large quantities of any commodity in order to acquire a monopoly, and to sell them again at high prices.

ENGROSSING – In English law. The getting into one’s possession, or buying up, large quantities of corn, or other dead victuals, with intent to sell them again. The total engrossing of any other commodity, with intent to sell it at an unreasonable price. This was a misdemeanor, punishable by fine and imprisonment… now repealed.

–=–

The importance of words and their origin cannot be understated, and defining terms is everything when it comes to the commercial realm of legal existence.

Yet I was actually accused of the crime of using too many definitions in this debate. I’m not sure how to even respond to such a pedagogical foundation of idiocy.

The promoters of anarchy simply despise definitions, and demand that only their own personal doctrine of chaos apply. And so I’m supposed to bypass the most respected dictionaries in the world and accept blindly the guru’s deluded mythos.

Several maxim’s of law state that to not appear is to not exist… that which does not appear, does not exist. In other words, the courts only recognize the fictional person in full legal name. Man appears in persona, an actor before the state. Interestingly, the legal definition of the word lie is to exist (see Black’s and Webster’s). The lie exists because it is believed in, has faith placed upon it, has an oath of allegiance taken to it, and it is confirmed by its citizens who act in its legal fiction persons. A man acting in fraud (in persona) cannot claim fraud while voluntarily participating in the fraud (fiction). This too, is a valid and self-evident principle of law. A liar (actor) has no justification to claim the source of his lie is a lie, for he confirms the lie by participation without rebuttal of the lie and the name he uses in the lie. Government exists and subsists as a lie confirmed by its voluntary participants.

The problem is, when we are shopping in Walmart we are also presumed to be doing so commercially, in person, which presumes consumer protections from government apply to the person consuming. A man not in citizenship has no such protections (securities) by government, for his actions would be private, and the commercial law only applies to public persons (individuals and corporations). The presumption of the legal law as applied to persons stands 100% of the time. The merchandise is purchased with United States currency or credit being used in a foreign State (residence/third party) by a United States agent (Domicile/principle) acting publicly in a United States person, and so it is considered a transaction in interstate commerce. This is the presumption of law. The presumption stands until correctly rebutted. This is not to say it is right or wrong, only to explain why a citizen cannot also claim to be in anarchy. That is illogical when the foundational principles are understood.

To be clear, this is business between two corporate states by the agent of the principal (United States), using the principals currency only by a permissive commercial contractual relationship between the individual State government and the government of the United States. If this is unclear, you better do some studying. You could start by reading “A Treatise On The Law Of Agency,” though it’s about 2,200 pages long. Or you could listen to my 7 or so interviews with “KW” on my radio archives (https://corporationnationradioarchives.wordpress.com/) (search tool at bottom of page).

Due diligence, you know… it changes everything.

Now, if I go into Walmart and start making affirmations and spouting off with pure logical discourse about the sins of commerce, how government doesn’t exist (though Walmart exists only as an incorporated artificial person under government), and how food and water should be free or at least un-engrosed, and if I try to apply logic to an employee of Walmart who simply follows the strict legal rules of the jurisdiction of Walmart, then the only thing I will accomplish is to disrupt the commercial flow of business of that particular Walmart franchise. I will prevent the exaction and extortion of the grocer upon my fellow citizen-ships. I’ll expend pointless energy and eventually I will be dismissed or physically removed from the store, kicked out for not being an easy mark. And commerce will immediately return to normal, serving the millions upon millions of “the people of Walmart.”

The slaves will continue to love their servitude, and they will forever wonder at the shadows on the cave wall.

Hmm… sounds a lot like my local court, now doesn’t it? It’s got a monopoly on justice, the grocer of administrative law and commerce. If I seek a benefit or remedy or protection, I have to go pray (plead) for it in court while in surety and appearance as its fictional persona (property). But if I pull the Walmart stunt above in court, well then I will again try and apply pointless logic and rhetoric to a situation and jurisdiction that only follows the strictest of printed rules of court procedure – its own legal grammar – which has no place in natural law or in anarchy, and certainly needs no foundation in logic. Fiction and nature just don’t mix, nor do anarchy and law. Like that checkout girl, the judge isn’t really impressed with equitable statements of reason, because the judge is just there to do his commercial best without equitable consideration; to follow the strict commercial laws, and to administrate according to strictest of commercial code. He or she is just running a business. Nothing more, nothing less. Reason need not apply, though logical fallacy abounds in the attorney’s repartee, as it does in Marc Stevens prank calls to government officials.

So why do Marc and his followers have “success” in court using the three questions and any other systems based on pure non sequitur logic with no grammatical consciousness or application of legal law or court procedure?

Because only one in a thousand men ever challenge the presumption of the legal law. And so commerce is good. Like the Walmart clerk, the judge’s job is to keep the extortion and exaction flowing in commerce. His is a for-profit business, just like the grocer, but worse. The system Mark uses is simply a big butt-plug in the commercial system’s anal cavity, temporarily stopping up its flow of dirty money. And so like in Walmart, the other customers are waiting as good little commercial citizens to have their turn to be engrossed and exacted from by that court. It’s simply easier to dismiss the case and remove the butt-plug from the courthouse than to sit and argue with a fool trying to apply logic and reason to a specifically and purposefully illogical and unreasonable format. Marc doesn’t win, he confuses. Anarchy has no place in court procedure. In the courts perspective, it would be illogical and unreasonable to allow Marc and other gurus to speak on the record and in front of other listening victims of the court, whom might actually learn of the commercial fraud that exacts from them.

But let’s ask the even more logical question. In business (commerce), what’s one missed opportunity to extort an individual mark (pun intended) when there are 100 more just waiting in the pews of justice for their turn to be voluntarily robbed?

A slave that frustrates and tricks his master occasionally is still a slave. His victories are artificial, though they might be perceived by the fool as otherwise. The cage still surrounds the rat. Cleverness is not a remedy. And a butt-plug is only remedial in its ability to confuse the flow of shit that comes from the court system. In other words, Marc’s approach is just anarchic towards government – a disruption of procedure and law. But again, this is not “anarchy” because Frank Rizzo is not in an actual state of anarchy.

Yes, the Steven’s approach will “provably” work at times, and will not “work” at other times. This cannot be denied. I’ve seen many-a-trick used, including a fake fall by an old man that threatened to sue the court for not employing handicap-accessible rampage, to which the case was immediately dismissed. This provably “worked” as well, but it had nothing to do with cracking the code of legal law or escaping its tyranny. It was clever. That’s all. And eventually the psychopath is more clever than the guru, which speaks to why Frank Rizzo claims to have been in jail 10 times while still professing that government does not exist.

“Marc” uses the word bureaucracy and bureaucrat repeatedly in his dialectic. But I wonder if he realizes that he is using a word that disproves his own foundational theories?

Let’s look it up for fun…

BUREAU – A French word, which literally means a large writing table. It is used figuratively for the place where business is transacted: it has been borrowed by us, and used in nearly the same sense; as, the bureau of the secretary of state. Vide Merl. Repert. h. t.

BUREAUCRACY – The abuse of official influence in the affairs of government; corruption. This word has lately been adopted to signify that those persons who are employed in bureaus abuse their authority by intrigue to promote their own benefit, or that of friends, rather than the public good. The word is derived from the French.

–Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856

–=–

Ironically, Marc’s use of this word bureaucracy as a reference to government workers is defined as exactly opposite to what he says about them in his fallacious rhetoric, even while calling them as such. His main argument is that government uses violence by and according to its own law, what he constantly refers to as “threat, duress, and coercion.” And yet the definition of one of his favorite insulting words is that a bureaucrat abuses only in the corruption of the government law, applying authority not granted by the law, and is taken from a word meaning a place used for business (commerce). So again, I ask the reader, is it important to define terms before using them?

Remember, the abuse suffered under Title 42 Section 1981 and from other U.S. Code is voluntarily accepted by the man in exchange for the use of government property in surety. The man vicariously follows the “justice” that is applied to the fictional person.

I love Marks approach. It is humorous, it is logical, it is seemingly reasonable to one who doesn’t know better, and it works in its confusion at times. But it’s got very little to do with legal law. It is not a remedy. It is not necesarily procedural. It is not even that hard to figure out for yourself as a moral concept. But what it isn’t is a settling of law. It’s a temporary glitch in the matrix, which is fixed the second the next surname is called to BAR. And the racquet of organized crime continues like nothing ever happened. No precedent is set. Corruption flows just as it did before. And Mark- I mean Frank Rizzo… goes right back into his commercial life while preaching anarchy to any fans he can be a rhetorician to.

To be clear, his approach has nothing to do with a state of living in anarchy. Placing the name of anarchy in with the trivium method and natural law is a huge red flag, and claiming to be an anarchist while acting as a citizen in court is about the most ludicrous schism of duality I can think of.

Here’s a funny video where Marc doesn’t know municipal procedure while appearing falsely as “Marc Stevens” before his city council. He shows up to a public comment session expecting to put the city council on trial, and actually expecting them to incriminate themselves or answer his questions. Hilariously, the councilman kindly informs “Marc” of the correct procedural forum, to which a somehow unembarrassed citizen continues with his rhetoric in comment form; absolutely ridiculous rhetoric, with no legal weight at all, let alone any respect or acknowledgement of the strict legal code of the municipality. At the end, he plays music recognizably from the matrix movies, and apparently thinks he did anything but be tolerated by the syndicate, which was totally unfazed by his accusations. This, to alter-ego super hero “Marc” is apparently proof of victory.

(This is where I would place a “LOL” if I was texting.)

–=–

Now in full disclosure, I find this so funny because I did the same exact thing when I was still listening to gurus and was unlearned. I did the guerrilla journalism. I did the logic and reason approach without grammar and without understanding code, and sometimes even better than Mr. “Stevens.” And I stood in front of my city councils with utter contempt in my speech and voiced how corrupt they truly are. It made me feel good, got my blood flowing in excitement, and the audience agreed. It was an interesting high, temporary in its rush, and of course the council went right ahead and did exactly what I was there to attempt to dissuade them to do. Why? Because I used a public comment forum incorrectly and without a clue as to legal procedure. And I accomplished absolutely jack shit.

A tyrant knows he’s a tyrant, a thief knows he’s a thief, and a politician knows he’s a politician. All of them have honor among themselves. So saying the obvious in a public comment forum is a foolish mistake made by many of us “fans” of other fools, the blind leading the blind. But I woke up from my haze. I put aside the programming and controlled opposition. I stopped listening to self-proclaimed experts whose influences were Alex Jones and the Founding Father freemasons, and I started reading only primary sources. That means no discourses from Passio or Stevens, but actually learning the grammar of government and the legal language its written in so that I could actually take the grammar and logically converse with the agents existing only in that legal matrix. So I tease myself as much as I do Marc here, but say also that its time to wake the hell up and stop institutionalizing such otherwise appealing ignorance.

The journey, when it comes to the learning process and curve here is tremendous, I know. Voluntary ignorance is much easier. It has no end, nor does knowledge itself. Only the followers who stop following succeed, breaking loose of institutionalized dogma, for they are forced to apply the trivium method to their own beliefs, and deprogram their own minds from both mainstream and alternative bullshit. It is a frightening thing to challenge yourself and find out that you are lying to yourself. Been there…

In another video, Marc actually recommends that folks sign a confession of guilt as a way to get a traffic ticket “thrown out” of court. He does this while telling you that all judges are likely psychopaths and total liars, a hasty generalization fallacy to be sure.

So, to be clear, we should appeal to a lying psychopath with logic and reason, and hope that our words make the Grinch’s heart grow by five inches? Is it really logical to attempt to apply reason to a psychopath? So many confusions and contradictions… but then, that’s anarchy!

–=–

Apparently Marc just can’t understand that calling government a lie is a compliment. It’s an admitted fiction of law. It knows its a lie, a fiction. He’s not really saying anything at all but the truth, which is that the lie exists.

In another so-called “discrediting” by Marc Stevens, the quite low-level government employee dominates his foolishness by answering his questions correctly without even knowing it. This is no stupid American. She even calls him out for claiming to have a “client” he is calling on behalf of, which she assumed meant he was practicing as an attorney – not the first time this misconception has happened with Marc and his clients. She finally tells him that his argument is irrelevant, which is totally correct. She is bound to employ strict law in a commercial center. Marc wishes to confuse what the strict law is by asking completely ridiculous questions (ridiculous to those with grammar) and whining about being interrupted as he did in our debate, an appeal to the emotional response of the listener. He speaks of her “rudeness” and demands she answer questions as if she is on trial, which she declines with surprising dignity and grace… and logic. Marc calls a lot of secretaries and low-level employees and then claims a victorious exclamation that logic wins every time. It’s a bit pathetic to watch when you get to the point where you can actually comprehend and answer his questions, which most people and more specifically most low-level government workers cannot. They are just following the strict rules that they are employed under. It’s just a job, as horrible as that reality is.

–=–

Do I have to point out that Marc states he is calling from “Scottsdale, Arizona” (a governmental, municipal, corporate jurisdiction) and then refers to his “physical presence” in that fictional city, which he claims at other times doesn’t really even exist? That’s like being a man inside of a cartoon realm, Roger Rabbit style. Only fictional persons can be in Scottsdale, Arizona, and fictions aren’t physical entities. The misconceptions flourish with this guy, and the lack of grammar is absolutely shocking.

So where does that leave the anarchy gurus?

That is up to the reader to decide. The path can only be shown, not forced upon you.

To the follower, I can only empathize as a former follower of gurus myself that this could appear like Marc somehow “wins” these unofficial discussions. But there was no contest. No game. No solicitation. No contract. No hearing. No court. No judge. No god. Nothing. It was a pointless call that only made the useful idiot employee more convinced of her job as being lawful and in the right than before he called her. Oh, and it gave Marc what he thinks is evidence and proof of his success. Let’s not forget his version and definition of “proof” after all…

What more is there to say here? I am not selling you anything. I can only offer grammar. Follow foolish men or learn for yourself.

To those with eyes to see and ears to hear, I hope this helps in your own journey.

To the rest, may you find some peace in your anarchy.

Wait… Wha?

Special thanks to Jan Irvin for his courage to moderate with integrity and then speak out against these false prophets even as his reputation is being attacked, though not his message. The fallacies are flying, and the gurus are in full damage control. We must suffer the attack-the-messenger volley’s together my friend. Keep up the good work!

And in final conclusion, let us get to the moral of this strange and convoluted story. The natural law is a law to be in duty to. It grants no rights or privileges. It is a religious and spiritual existence. Anarchy, on the other hand, is the absence of any law, contrary to the new age reinventions of this word. Lawlessness and law do not mix. they are diametrically opposed. And so ultimately I only ask that these gurus admit their logical fallacy in the form of a verifiable non sequitur and state that natural law and indeed nature itself and anarchy are opposing concepts. Otherwise, natural law merely stands as a confusion of understanding, exactly as anarchy is defined. Remember, nature (God) is not the author of confusion, and anarchy is defined as the authoring and promotion of confusion.

69 Comments

New word – “Andrechist” it means “self government” 🙂 I always felt the word “anarchy” was never properly applied in context or was mis-defined. Can man exist in self government ? Or will their always be someone ruling over another? Dont we exist mostly in a state of anarchy pretty much all day long until their is a state imposition ? The only way man can exist in a state of “organic anarchy” is by the Golden Rule Matt 22:37 . William Penn is correct (listening) because if you dont believe in God, you will always have a mortal master ruling over you. Even if God doesnt exist, man would invent God. If you dont treat your brother as yourself, you become the tyrant. Those are the closest parameters that I have come up for self government. I am always open to new ideas. What I have learned from the etymological experience is 1) words have many definitions 2) sometimes appearing contradictory 3) That words are defined then revised to suit and maintain a political pharisee group think agenda (my observation) as witness by revision of dictionaries.

NotACannibal

TJ

I’m not very experienced yet in matters of sovereignty & commercial law (I’m working on it), but I came across this guy some time ago, & I think (at least for starters) that you will find a much better intellectual match in Larken Rose. He’s on YouTube & facebook, as well as having his own site : http://www.larkenrose.com.

I love his rhetoric, have promoted his work, but his foundation is flawed. We already live in a voluntary society. That understanding changes everything, to the point that we must stop blaming everything else as the problem and start fixing ourselves and stop volunteering.

I’m not as popular of course, since I don’t tell people what they want to hear.

TJ

How voluntary is it really, though, when people are tricked into ‘mandatory’ ‘volunteering’? It’s enough of a feat just to get people to recognize (let alone to think about) the realities of this world, even when it is literally right before their eyes. So in that sense, I can totally relate to unpopularity for not telling people what they want to hear.

Ulrike Bose

You think thats the reason you are not so popular ? Because you are not a mouthpiece for the mass mind ? I can tell you why, “We already live in a voluntary society”- because you make no sense, i didnt get asked by anybody to live in a “state” with borders, ids, law and order police state. The real enemy of safety is the state.

My book will explain in detail why we live in a voluntary society. It took many years and many chapters to explain it. Without knowing the law and its history in societies, one cannot comprehend just how tricked we are by our own perception of words and language, which is purposefully designed to deceive. Perhaps you should attempt to prove that you are not a volunteer in the legal view? Remember, volunteerism is also known as the doctrine of master and servant. It is not your opinion that matters, it is the opinion of the “person” you contract with. When you rent a car, you do not make the rules. Right?

If all words can be construed as conceptions or deceptions of the truth, what then is the meaning of meaning?

No doubt you’re aware that all words exist in a state of antinomic flux, waiting to be infused with meaning by each individual’s subjective analysis. The arbitrary nature of the etymological mouth noises derived from generations of humans grasping at survival techniques and contending with scarcity has axiomatically established that power consolidation is most effective when the dominant class dictates meaning to the masses. Words are merely shadows of the objects of our perception and sentience. Consciousness is absolute in existential occurrence. Each unit of consciousness holds its own network of assumptions and philosophies about reality. To assert one perspective over another requires a type of omniscience and empiricism. Offering the opinions of other units of consciousness from history raises more issues than just stating your own perspective.

None of your objections to anarchism came close to being regarded as self evident. They begged too many questions to address in the interest of brevity. Plus there’s the obvious strawman fallacy. I believe I now know what it feels like to read the prolix of a professional pontificator and regardless of my agreement/disagreement ratio that I have with your expression here, I’d like to offer a debate together on a new app called Periscope?

The Neuro semantic framework of your writing here, more than suggests that you are a capable and well informed human being. How much of your mindsets approximation of reality can your decoded construct of reality account for? This question requires the skill of perception known as metacognition. Furthermore, to what degree of accuracy does your grasp of existence inform your perception of self, others, religion, government, economics, liberty, law, science, philosophy and life itself?
In short; what is YOUR theory of everything?

I would not disagree with your premise, if my writing here was actually about randomness and existentialism. But it’s not.

Perhaps the most important point here is missing in your understanding. That is of the art form. Artifice. Which is specific, not reliant on “everything”. When participating in the medical art, one uses specific terms of that art. And so that people don’t die due to miscommunication, doctors and nurses don’t stand around a dying man on the operating table debating the finer points of etymology. They learn and follow STRICT definitions so that they can all work together and have no anarchy (confusion).

The legal realm is no different. The terms are very well defined, though the same word can be applied differently to different legal forms, which are also well-defined. Understanding the language of the art form you participate in is key to success in that art form, and key to success in escaping it. The point here friend is that there is no room for interpretation in the artifice, because the artifice must be well defined so that it can exist as a cohesive lie. It is not in anarchy in its foundation. It is STRICT and specific, as all good fictions must be.

So all I can say here is that your points above do not apply to this fiction, and certainly would not stand up in the court of this legal art, wise as they may be. When speaking of the legal realm, we must lose our ego, and realize that our own opinion about self, others, religion, government, economics, liberty, law, science, philosophy, and life itself has no place in the courtroom. And that is the purpose of this research. The flux you refer to is controlled by the art, not by us, and certainly not by randomness or by nature.

I agree with your analogy brother. I just diverge in its interpretive application.

I disagree with your characterization of the governmental fiction (useful as it may be in governing the wards of the state) as being an art form. If that were true gov would be like an abstract painting evoking 7 billion different subjective experiences of its true nature. To construe the immorality of the premise of gov as an art form is to praise sycophants and despots. (kinda) Authority at the societal level is a belief system. Is it not immoral to put ones beliefs on another when existing peacefully or even diplomatically? When disagreement on definition arises what magical power is the basis for determining one perspective over another? Just because men wrote words on parchment paper 200+ years ago does not translate into some type of moral authority in binding anyone to anything just because the writing itself is self referencing. (Tautological) Even if the esoteric discoveries you’ve unveiled are the roadmap to freedom you’ve chosen to place your bets on are true, it still doesn’t convert the fundamental basis of gov into a moral proposition. Regardless of the arbitrary legal opinions of lawyers and judges throughout the ages whose words you offer as evidence of some ubiquitous truth value to the narrow slice of reality that the sovereign freeman movement espouses, it’s nothing more than a belief about how to perceive the nuances of psychopathic tyrants and the abyss of chicanery they’ve employed in binding there fellow man into indentured servitude.

It seems unavoidable to me to divorce this topic from the concept of “everything” (philosophy/consistency, existentialism and even chaos theory, ontology, ethics, etc.) touched on so far. Spelling casts spells. Words themselves are a type of chopping up of experiential data sets which in truth exist in the uni-multi-omniverse as a part of a toroidal continuum of sorts. The psychological disposition of definitions presupposes conjectures about reality where no empiricism has been able to shine the light of objectivity. Everything exists in relation to something else. The veritable dance with dichotomy or waltz with trichotomy if you will…
Anarchists (which I count myself among a marginalized minority called panarchists) are pointing at one of the facets of a multifaceted problem that exists on this planet. (Gov) Mark Twain wold say it’s the things that people believe that just aren’t so, which is at the root of this dilemma. Self knowledge is a luxury not afforded to the masses.
I find anarchy to be synonymous with the term self governing. A status afforded only to those who are willing to “come out of her my people” as David Williams of Matrix Solutions quotes the bible often. No doubt you’ve discovered The Constitution outlined and exemplified the path humans could choose to take if they did as all nation states have done since the days of the Magna Carta. The Right of Self Determination or right to exile as it was known prior. Creating ones own template of organizational, economic and political preference is to a precious few, one of the only keys out of the system we’ve inherited from generations of dupes that believed themselves as We the People. Anarchy isn’t a demand for everyone to become an anarchist, it’s a personal preference. One that violates no ones autonomy regardless of belief and importance put on subjective truth value judgements which are apodeictic realities of consciousness itself.
The golden rule, the Non Aggression Principle Universally Preferable Behavior, and even Kant’s Categrical Imperitive are all attempts at establishing an axiomatic universal moral or ethical basis for human interaction. None have proven themselves empirically, yet they are all great places to start in discussions about morality. Belief that government is necessary is just that—belief. If all the great minds of the past have not established a universal metric in determining objective morality, what makes you think the mendicants of gov have codified anything of moral relevance to sovereign individuals?

Propaganda and slavery to dictionaries are not synonymous with truth, other than the negative indication value that could be inferred in its place.

Every instant of existence is an opportunity to break from the past. Because one values judgments made by now dead humans does not in fact establish anything other than a bias. As presumed free humans we can choose to exist in vacillation of appreciation for all time quantities, past present and future. If you take the long view we are still very much in the singularity of the Big Bang as it continues to expand throughout the universe…

I’m not advocating the fiction of gov be overthrown, it’s not mine to overthrow. Instead I promote a free market approach to gov. Panarchy is the right to choose your jurisdiction. This ought to be an option, and it is according to international law, for those who arrive at this strata of discovery, in approximating reality unto ones own educational level of decoding information.

I dig your approximations brother. I just deny any being the moral right to subject anyone to anything based on beliefs and value judgements. Things in life are good, bad or indifferent and its each beings right to choose their preference as long as violence is not initiated against person or property. (General def of person)
I believe if we stop in fighting online about issues of personal preference that do nothing to violate each other’s autonomy then we are one step closer to achieving a world we can be proud to hand off to our offspring. I disagree with democracy, but if people voluntarily and transparently self organize in that political fashion it’s their own problem as I see it. Same is true for any political or economic disposition. (IMHO)

I’ve also discovered a glitch in the matrix of perceived objective reality that asserts the following veridical paradox; in order for objectivity to be objectively established, consciousness would necessarily require unreality or non existence. Any insight into this riddle would be greatly appreciated. What I guess I’m selling, if stated overtly, is that true freedom derives from embracing chaos. Uncertainty is a principal of empirical basis. Schrödinger and quantum mechanics have done more in establishing this idea more than any law or legislation has in determining truth, virtue or righteousness since its inception. What is the governments position on truth? Does it even have one? How could it be regarded as authority if it can’t even opine a statement? Plus who is the spokesperson of what gov is and is not?

I suggest researching the idea of the phaneron to see how it is the fallibility of all ideological assertions—even the ones I just made;)

Also Larkin Rose 5 questions to statists. (Defined by myself as: Statism is the belief that humans can’t selfgovern and instead believe humans can govern other humans… —voluntaryism)

1) Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?
2) Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right to do things which other people do not have the moral right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right?

3) Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act (without changing the act itself)?

4) When law-makers and law-enforcers use coercion and force in the name of law and government, do they bear the same responsibility for their actions that anyone else would who did the same thing on his own?

5) When there is a conflict between an individual’s own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, is the individual morally obligated to do what he personally views as wrong in order to “obey the law”?

THX1138

The “Big Bang” is a fraud, a fiction, a hoax. It has been falsified by, among others, one Halton Arp, who was vilified and “disbarred” as an astronomer (although his record of observations was impeccable). Schrödinger was part of another fraud perpetrated on the world’s people in the same “scientific” hoax enterprise as Einstein, leading ultimately to one of the greatest fear tactics ever devised, the “Atomic Bomb”, which does not exist. “Science” is just another religion, nothing more and nothing less. Discovery, observation, and interpretation of the results thereof still remains with each and every individual man.

I’ve not heard of this Halton Arp. I’ll be sure to check into his research.

The Big Bang, to me, is nothing more than one of many ontological propositions of metaphorical storytelling significance. I like discussions like these. They challenge my imagination to perceive your perspective and intentions. It seems to me that just about every ideology is cult-like and religious in one degree or another…

I dig your statement about: “discovery, observation and interpretation” all of these hinge on an unfalsifiable subjectivity of the human condition. That being the case flies in the face of men alleging authority over other men. Not in any absolute sense, just in sane, peaceful and reasonable interactions, people are only ever capable of speaking from the phaneron. This is another one of those useful fictions that helps facilitate conversation about abstract mental concepts.
If you’re at all into chats like these find iiixtheory on any social media and we can further acquaint if at all desired?
Cheers!

[30/04/2015 21:16:20] Vin James: anarchist call for the abolition of governments, and it doesn’t promote chaos and disorder, it means being free to live a world without rulers, but one that you must still live and conduct yourself according to basic principles of fairness and decency i.e. do no harm, do not initiate aggression unjustifiably etc.
[30/04/2015 21:18:16] Clint Richardson: But surely, logically, reasonably, you can comprehend that this state of being will never happen among all men. In fact, it can only happen among a very few men. Even the Bible states that this path is narrow.

And there is no set definition for it. There is criminal and non-criminal. And Black’s states that

“At its best it pertains to a society made orderly by good manners rather than law, in whcih each person produces according to his powers and recieves according to his needs, and at its worst, the word pertains to a terroristic resistance of all present government and social order.”
[30/04/2015 21:18:40] Clint Richardson: Seems to me that you’d have to use force to make people abandon their government.
[30/04/2015 21:20:40] Clint Richardson: For you can’t surely believe that you can convince every man that anarchy is the right way. You certainly can’t convince me. So what will you do with me? Cause I know a lot of people who actually value some form of government and law. So seems the criminal kind is all that is realistic. But then that destroys the whole point. Anarchism therefore seems to be a circular logic. A trap. A controlled oposition even.
[30/04/2015 21:21:10] Clint Richardson: Yeah… I went there!
[30/04/2015 21:25:24 | Edited 21:25:44] Vin James: so essentially Clint, your a statist, and that’s a position you can argue on the radio show next week
[30/04/2015 21:26:30] Marc Stevens: wow, I can’t even
[30/04/2015 21:28:24] Marc Stevens: looks like Clint favors having rulers, and advocates that a small group of people forcing strangers to give them money
[30/04/2015 21:31:03] Vin James: yep so let’s see how he is going to defend it ?.
[30/04/2015 21:31:24] Marc Stevens: I didn’t know he was such a statist
[30/04/2015 21:33:02] Vin James: trouble is with statists is they confuse the needs of goverment, with the needs of society, as they are not the same thing.
[30/04/2015 21:33:11 | Edited 21:33:25] Clint Richardson: That’s right. Attack the messenger. Don’t address the questions or definitions by men much more respected than me. Best way to defend a flawed position is to accuse the asker of the questions as something he is not.
[30/04/2015 21:33:38] Clint Richardson: You got this down Mark, don’t ya?
[30/04/2015 21:33:50] Marc Stevens: Clint, I’ve noticed a pattern with you, you always think people are attacking you and giving logical fallacies
[30/04/2015 21:33:55] Clint Richardson: Not one of my questions has yet to be answered reasonably and without fallacy
[30/04/2015 21:34:14] Marc Stevens: I said this was best addressed in real time on a voice call
[30/04/2015 21:34:16] Clint Richardson: Anyone reading your response can see its poisoning the well and ad hominem
[30/04/2015 21:34:20] Marc Stevens: at least for me
[30/04/2015 21:34:36] Clint Richardson: yet you still make statements in this medium.
[30/04/2015 21:34:40] Marc Stevens: ad hominem? are you serious?
[30/04/2015 21:35:04] Clint Richardson: The above info and questions are for your benefit so that you can answer live my questions. I like you to be prepared.
[30/04/2015 21:35:05] Marc Stevens: well when you post a wall of text it is difficult to address everything
[30/04/2015 21:35:34] Clint Richardson: Your right. I should use emoticons.
[30/04/2015 21:36:27] Clint Richardson: As the subject at hand is now being masterfully deflected, and the questions are not being adressed, I’ll be the big man and bow out.
[30/04/2015 21:37:22 | Edited 21:37:55] Vin James: @ Clint you have stated that you cannot envision a world without goverment it’s not our position, and no one has been attacking you personally, but your argument, if you defend goverment, then you are of a statist mindset it’s that simple
[30/04/2015 21:38:17] Clint Richardson: You are entitled to your opinion, and as Voltaire said, I’ll die defeding your right to express it.
[30/04/2015 21:38:46 | Edited 21:39:14] Vin James: you may be entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts remember that Clint
[30/04/2015 21:38:52] Marc Stevens: I offered to address the issues in real time on a voice call, who is deflecting anything?
[30/04/2015 21:39:13] Marc Stevens: :^)
[30/04/2015 21:41:15] Clint Richardson: Weirdness. Amazing deflection and redirection. How did this turn so sour? Why is nobody communicating with dignity and respect? This is what attorneys do. Again, I’ll bow out and talk to you Friday then live. You have my perfectly legitimate questions for consideration and commentary.
[30/04/2015 21:42:31] Marc Stevens: there is a disconnect with your communication Clint, you take everything as an attack or that others are ALWAYS responding with a logical fallacy, you wrote you supported government, so when I referred to you as a statist, it was a description, not an ad hominem
[30/04/2015 21:42:59] Marc Stevens: geez, there is a difference between an insult and an ad hominem, and I didn’t use either one
[30/04/2015 21:43:13] Vin James: Ok Clint, be good if you could join us as well Marc, let’s see what evidence Clint can produce ?.

that’s about half the conversation the took place on skype before Clint came on Marc’s show.

let people read it for themselves to see, why I called you a statist Clint.”Cause I know a lot of people who actually value some form of government and law” remeber saying this ?. so there are people out there who value other people “mind controlling” then, which is the very definition of “goverment” which I know your so fond of.

they can also see for themselves how you dominate a conversation, with endless definitions and false premises, how can anybody keep up, with such multi layered fallacies ?.

Definition: Using a dictionary’s limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning. This is a fallacy because dictionaries don’t reason; they simply are a reflection of an abbreviated version of the current accepted usage of a term, as determined through argumentation and eventual acceptance. In short, dictionaries tell you what a word meant, according to the authors, at the time of its writing, not what it meant before that time, after, or what it should mean.

Dictionary meanings are usually concise, and lack the depth found in an encyclopedia; therefore, terms found in dictionaries are often incomplete when it comes to helping people to gain a full understanding of the term.

Logical Form:

The dictionary definition of X does not mention Y.

Therefore, Y must not be part of X.

Example #1:

Ken: Do you think gay marriage should be legalized?

Paul: Absolutely not! Marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman—not between two men or two women!

Ken: Did you know that in 1828 the dictionary definition of marriage included, “for securing the maintenance and education of children”? Does that mean that all married couples who can’t or choose not to have children aren’t really married?

Paul: No, it just means they need to buy updated dictionaries.

Ken: As do you. The current Merriam-Webster dictionary includes as a secondary definition, “the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.”

Explanation: The dictionary does not settle controversial issues such as gay marriage—it simply reports the most current accepted definition of the term itself while usually attempting to remain neutral on such controversial issues.

Example #2:

Armondo: Mrs. Patterson was wrong to knock off 10 points off my oral presentation because I kept using the word, “erection” instead of building.

Felix: That was hilarious, but did you honestly think you would not get in trouble?

Armondo: No, my dictionary says that an erection is a building.

Explanation: Armondo may be right, but the dictionary is not the final authority on all issues, especially social behavior. More modern usage, especially in a high school setting, takes precedence in this case.

Exception: The dictionary works well when the term in question is a result of a misunderstanding or ignorance. For example:

Ken: Do you accept biological evolution?

Paul: No. Because I know for a fact that my grandmother was not a monkey.

Ken: Good Lord.

Tip: Don’t be afraid to argue with authority if you believe you are right — even when that authority is the dictionary.

Doesn’t even occur to you, Vin, that yours and Marc’s whole case pends on one,single DEFINITION as an appeal to what anarchy is, and of which every other definition is opposite to. Your fallacious appeal is the strongest and has nothing to back it, while my research is only to disprove your definition.

Vins definition doesn’t include chaos, confusion, disorder, lawlessness, and license, so Vin’s definition must be the only one.

You guys are so exposed right now that I’m starting to feel sorry for you.

And why did you only copy part, Vin? You forgot my questions before this.

Let’s read:

———————————————————

Question: What is the popular alternative definition of anarchist nowadays, to be clear? What does an anarchist stand for? Is it standard or different with each anarchist? And can anarchists ever be organized in any way considering their anarchism as I understand it?

Answer: @ Clint, an anarchist is generally someone who rejects the concept, and dogma’s of having rulers, goverment, monarchys etc that’s all.

Q: I am making the assumption that by dogma the anarchist then means moral (ecclesiastical) and civil law together, since the church and the state cannot exist without each other, protecting and justifying each others’ legal existence.

But I must ask, is anarchy then a state of being or just a political idea that leads to another state of being? To what end does one claim to be an anarchist and how is that a “remedy?” In other words, is anarchy an end or a means to another end? And if this later be the case, where does one go from the point of declaring this state of being in anarchy? What does one protect and what protections does one claim from the tyranny of these rulers, governments, monarchies, etc? For in my research, it seems that these magistrates very much wish for man to claim both anarchy and atheism, for without some showable law that dispells the governance of their non-governed actions, the gods (magistrates) have every right (in their own logic/dialectic) to govern the lawless man’s actions. After all, government is military rule over those who cannot govern themselves, via desire or ignorance. War is Peace. Peace is war without active violence from the governing military force (executive power). The only men I have come across that have freed themselves from the secular government are those who claim as the governing law the Bible, and who have introduced that law to the registrar and to any judge claiming differently. And they only stay out of secular government by living by those scriptures as their law, not just believing and talking about it. But I have never heard of anyone introducing “anarchy” as their law or as remedy. I am not standing opposed to anarchy, just wondering how it can be “proven,” for does not lawlessness claim no higher law than man’s law? Further, can anyone show me where anarchy is respected by the legal governments and religions of the world, which claim the world as their territory and jurisdiction? The point being that one cannot seemingly stand before a judge (god) and bring the law of anarchy into the courtroom, for it represents no law.

A: Marc Stevens: Anarchy is no rulers, not no rules… generally anarchists, such as me, adhere to the non-aggression principal and respect for personal autonomy

Q: But surely this is a flawed perspective, as all men who do not adhere to this will join together as they have through the ages to dominate you. Is this not akin to insanity, as defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? This non-aggression principal and respect for personal autonomy exists as the fundamental law of nations, but is overshadowed by voluntary citizenship. The law is there, but no one claims its protections because very few know quite how. These principles you espouse as anarchist are the same principles listed in the maxims (principles) of law. The only problem is that choice to abandon those principles falls on the man. So why call it anarchy if it’s the principles of natural (God’s) law as recognized by government? It seems like just a repackaging of what already exists without credit to the “Creator.” Anarchists did not define the natural law and certainly didn’t write the ancient scriptures that these principles are based on. So… back to the original questions above… where do you go from anarchy, since it obviously is not a viable existence in and of itself and it merely borrows its tenets from others? How do you protect your “existence” if you have no organization? Is organization allowed? When do you be aggressive in order to protect your claims against those who aggress upon you? With no standard, no set way, aren’t you doomed to fail or at the very least be conquered (purchased) due to your refusal to join a protective “state” (People)? Isn’t it true that your very ability to be anarchistic is only possible because this government is set up to protect your ability to do so, as long as you stay peaceful towards its commercial goals? Can you “travel” over to Syria or Korea and claim anarchy without being shot in the head, or is that only possible in government jurisdictions that adhere to international law and principles of law? Seems like a paradox to me, that anarchy is only possible under a government that protects the speech of anarchy but not the actions. Perhaps I am mistaken. Please let me know…

A: Marc Stevens: anarchy under a government, so when people force you to give you money, then they pay other men to subjugate you, that is anarchy? This is a rough way to communicate, huge blocks of text and I am between calls, it’s better to just do a call and record it for a broadcast. Most anarchists I am familiar with are not pacifists, we believe in self defense, defensive violence is always morally justified.

Q: Clint Richardson: So, to be clear, you seem to believe then that somehow anarchy exists in or despite the United States jurisdiction over this area of legal authority called a “nation.” Do you believe that somehow you are an “anarchist” in any way other than personal belief that you are, while at the same time being under the Executive military rule of the United States? What do you do to actually show you are in this state of anarchy? Or is anarchy your end goal? So far not one answer to one question…

Free is a franchise. Freedom of religion means freedom of thought but not freedom of action.

I don’t use the word truth anymore. LOL. The maxims (principles) of law make truth a very ugly word.

“A matter decided or passed upon by a court of competent jurisdiction is received as evidence of truth.”

The second you acknowledge you are the person it becomes “truth” even though it is a lie.

Actually they do have a monopoly on logic, because it’s their logic, and logic merely means dialectic. They own the terms they publish as law, and they define them. Not you or me.
TERMS OF ART

Vin, government is a monopoly. It is the creator of its own fiction. The maxim is clear, THE CREATOR CONTROLS. Facing the reality of how things work is not relativism. Your personal beliefs are relativism, as are mine. Thus, I am not throwing my beliefs around only defining terms as government does.

Applying logic to something fictional and illogical is just nutty.

I have another question that perhaps can be explored by those espousing anarchism as an individualist mentality. Webster’s 1828, my go to English Language dictionary, defines anarchical as such:

“adjective. Without rule of government; in a state of confusion; applied to a state or society…”

I see here that one, its the state of a society not of an individual, and two that it is without rules and without government, as opposed to Mark’s personal definition. It also states that an anarchist is one that is:

“An anarch; one who excites revolt, or promotes disorder in a state.”

So really, by this definition, an anarchist cannot even exist without a government to revolt against!!! LOL!

To clarify, Webster defines the root of the word as anarch:

“The author of confusion; one who excites revolt.”

So what place does an anarchist have if he has nothing to confuse or revolt against? Seems to me that anarchy as a state of being is a bit of an oxymoron, as the end result of anarchy would lead to the destruction of the purpose of being an anarch.

Gotta love words…

A: Vin James: anarchist call for the abolition of governments, and it doesn’t promote chaos and disorder, it means being free to live a world without rulers, but one that you must still live and conduct yourself according to basic principles of fairness and decency i.e. do no harm, do not initiate aggression unjustifiably etc.

Q: Clint Richardson: But surely, logically, reasonably, you can comprehend that this state of being will never happen among all men. In fact, it can only happen among a very few men. Even the Bible states that this path is narrow.

And there is no set definition for it. There is criminal and non-criminal. And Black’s states that:

“At its best it pertains to a society made orderly by good manners rather than law, in which each person produces according to his powers and recieves according to his needs, and at its worst, the word pertains to a terroristic resistance of all present government and social order.”
Seems to me that you’d have to use force to make people abandon their government.

For you can’t surely believe that you can convince every man that anarchy is the right way. You certainly can’t convince me. So what will you do with me? Cause I know a lot of people who actually value some form of government and law. So seems the criminal kind is all that is realistic. But then that destroys the whole point. Anarchism therefore seems to be a circular logic. A trap. A controlled opposition even. Yeah… I went there!

Vin James: so essentially Clint, your a statist, and that’s a position you can argue on the radio show next week

Marc Stevens: wow, I can’t even… looks like Clint favors having rulers, and advocates that a small group of people forcing strangers to give them money

Vin James: trouble is with statists is they confuse the needs of goverment, with the needs of society, as they are not the same thing.

—————————————————————

So my saying I know a lot of people that value government and law, which was not stated as an actual reference to myself by the way, therefore means that I’m a statist and so all my other questions are invalidated? Like I said Vin, go try and be an anarchist where there is no government and law to protect you, and see what the hell happens to you.

You are proving yet again that you are nothing but the author of confusion.

Note: This is not all texts, just mine to show all the questions I actually asked that were not answered.

Sidney Smith

You are required to reclaim dominion the grant of rights from the Creator Genesis Chapter one 1-26,-1-27, 1-28, Delegation of authority, power, Jurisdiction and liberty, life the pursuit of happiness you are the the Law of One. However, as a sovereign your right to take the responseability to make change the in your life , Government Inc., for liberty, life the pursuit of happiness with love and truth for doing the right thing for the right reason

THX1138

o Clint replied,
o
o “So my saying I know a lot of people that value government and law, which was not stated as an actual reference to me by the way, therefore means that I’m a statist and so all my other questions are invalidated? Like I said VIN, go try and be an anarchist where there is no government and law to protect you, and see what the hell happens to you.
o
You are proving yet again that you are nothing but the author of confusion.
Note: This is not all texts, just mine to show all the questions I actually asked that were not answered.”

Oh I get it, so you know other people who are statist, who make the argument that without government there would be chaos, mayhem etc correct?

But then you go and say “go try and be an anarchist where there is no government and law to protect you, and see what the hell happens to you”.

Which is exactly the argument statist use against anarchy, so you yourself advocate the exact same argument the people you claim to only know, would make?

How that is for double think?

It’s what’s referred to as the original sin argument Without god er…government rather, everyone go on a rampage, murder , rape and steal etc, all because they have nothing to fear anymore i.e being unaccountable, and with conscience ?.

what makes you think you are the only moral person in the world, who wouldn’t engage in such things, are you aware of the percentage of the population is actually involved in causing real crime ?, I can tell you it’s not even into double figures according to estimates, and guess what government doesn’t stop them from committing their crimes either.

Richard Dawkins said to a theist who tried to make this argument with regards to god, “Are you saying the only reason you don’t murder, rape and steal is because you’re afraid of punishment?” If that’s the case, you’re really in no position to be lecturing about morals.

The thing is Clint, even atheist can be statists as we have found, but we recognise statism is just another form of religion, so where an atheist rejects one god more than a fundamentalist, we go even one more further than most atheist, and reject government, i.e. We don’t go giving real people supernatural qualities, and view them as gods.

There have been examples of anarchy presented to you Clint, and you arbitrarily dismissed them, and what they show is people on the whole don’t descend into chaos, but actually do the opposite, remember when I mentioned the friendly societies, and how they organised themselves very efficiently to provide its members with services, and products needed throughout the community, and all without government involved ?, it was only when government decided to intervene and take over these services that they ruined their original purpose, and success.

If they only thing that stops you becoming a criminal is because you can only get your moral compass from government, and “Law” i.e (Legal Opinion) and that’s what keeps you in check, then you’re in no position to claim to understand people and lecture them on morals, ethics, right or wrong, because you need telling what to think, instead of knowing how to think for yourself.

It’s the same argument made by fundamentalist, “you can’t have morals with god”, but those that are trying to be more rational about such issues realise, we get our sense of morals from a rational observation, that our actions impact on other people and vice versa, therefore if we are to live together and cooperate, we need to recognise that “my ability to swing my arm, stops at the end of your nose”.

The human mind is hardwired via processes of evolution to recognise such things, because they are essential to needs of survival, not just as individuals, but to the species as a whole, and it’s displayed in most other complex animals on the planet as well.
The ironic thing is about your arguments Clint, is the world you envision would happen, without government, has actually happened, we have mafia styled criminals stealing from everybody, creating chaos, wars, misery etc, with no protection or justice to be found, it’s called Government”.

Finally let’s not overlook, the fact you previously did concede to the very definition of anarchy when you stated after I explained what anarchy really meant,

“But surely, logically, reasonably, you can comprehend that this state of being will never happen among all men. In fact, it can only happen among a very few men”,

so you accepted anarchy meant no rulers i.e. No government, but could bring yourself you envision a world without it, that’s called fear of freedom itself, and comes straight out of the statists playbook.

CORRECTED VERSION, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO REMOVE PREVIOUS COPY
o
o Clint replied,
o
o “So my saying I know a lot of people that value government and law, which was not stated as an actual reference to me by the way, therefore means that I’m a statist and so all my other questions are invalidated? Like I said VIN, go try and be an anarchist where there is no government and law to protect you, and see what the hell happens to you.
o
You are proving yet again that you are nothing but the author of confusion.
Note: This is not all texts, just mine to show all the questions I actually asked that were not answered.”

Oh I get it, so you know other people who are statist, who make the argument that without government there would be chaos, mayhem etc correct?
But then you go and say “go try and be an anarchist where there is no government and law to protect you, and see what the hell happens to you”.
Which is exactly the argument statist use against anarchy, so you yourself advocate the exact same argument the people you claim to only know, would make?
How is that, for double think?
It’s what’s referred to as the original sin argument Without god er…government rather, everyone go on a rampage, murder , rape and steal etc, all because they have nothing to fear anymore i.e being unaccountable, and without conscience ?.
what makes you think you are the only moral person in the world, who wouldn’t engage in such things, are you aware of the percentage of the population who is actually involved in causing real crime ?, I can tell you it’s not even into double figures according to estimates, and guess what government doesn’t stop them from committing their crimes either.

Richard Dawkins said to a theist who tried to make this argument with regards to god, “Are you saying the only reason you don’t murder, rape and steal is because you’re afraid of punishment?” If that’s the case, you’re really in no position to be lecturing about morals.

The thing is Clint, even atheist can be statists as we have found, but we recognise statism is just another form of religion, so where an atheist rejects one god more than a fundamentalist, we go even one more further than most atheist, and reject government, i.e. We don’t go giving real people supernatural qualities, and view them as gods.

There have been examples of anarchy presented to you Clint, and you arbitrarily dismissed them, and what they show is people on the whole don’t descend into chaos, but actually do the opposite, remember when I mentioned the friendly societies, and how they organised themselves very efficiently to provide its members with services, and products needed throughout the community, and all without government involved ?, it was only when government decided to intervene and take over these services that they ruined their original purpose, and success.

If the only thing that stops you becoming a criminal is because you can only get your moral compass from government, and “Law” i.e (Legal Opinion) and that’s what keeps you in check, then you’re in no position to claim to understand people, and lecture them on morals, ethics, right or wrong, because you clearly need telling what to think, instead of knowing how to think for yourself.

It’s the same argument made by fundamentalist, “you can’t have morals without god”, but those that are trying to be more rational about such issues realise, we get our sense of morals from a rational observation, that our actions impact on other people and vice versa, therefore if we are to live together and cooperate, we need to recognise that “my ability to swing my arm, stops at the end of your nose”.
The human mind is hardwired via processes of evolution to recognise such things, because they are essential to needs of survival, not just as individuals, but to the species as a whole, and it’s displayed in most other complex animals on the planet as well.
The ironic thing about your arguments Clint, is the world you envision would happen, without government, has actually happened, we already have mafia styled criminals stealing from everybody, creating chaos, wars, misery etc, with no protection or justice to be found, it’s called Government”, or to describe it more clearly, a small group of people who call themselves “government”.

Finally let’s not overlook, the fact you previously did concede to the very definition of anarchy when you stated after I explained what anarchy really meant

“But surely, logically, reasonably, you can comprehend that this state of being will never happen among all men. In fact, it can only happen among a very few men”,

So you accepted anarchy meant no rulers i.e. No government, but could not bring yourself you envision a world without it, that’s call fear of freedom itself, and comes straight out of the statists playbook.
So Clint, I still stand by my original description of you
YOU’RE A STATIST

am

Who makes the rules? Without some leadership what happens when someone breaks the rules?

Most of us like to be organised to some degree; chaos is a stressful state to be in. While valuing my right to self management, I recognise the value of cooperating with others to achieve things that I couldn’t achieve alone. Cooperation requires organisation and even in small, less technologically advanced societies some sort of hierarchical structure is put in place, for cooperation and preservation of the tribe. And we are essentially social beings, most of us. We don’t live in total isolation from others.

I think an important difference here is that those at the top of the structure are never too far removed from those at the bottom. Maybe power over others is less likely to be abused because of this fact?

I tend to agree with you that one of the problems with how our society is organised is that there is lawlessness of the governors which equates to anarchy (as generally defined) at the top of the structure. There is a class which is above the rules or who change the rules to protect themselves when they want to indulge in what really amounts to anti social behaviour. All these organisations which make it their business to control absent any mandate from the people in society need to be outlawed.

We need a structure or structures that keeps the power holders close to the rest of the people, within their grasp, as it were, and answerable to those in society whom they are meant to represent. Currently they are too far removed and removing themselves even further…..one world government?

Massive reform and minimal government would be my ideal….not an absence of rules or rulers. How to achieve that is another matter. Perhaps the intellectuals who have commented above are clever enough to suggest how that might be achieved?

THX1138

Can you please tell me what would constitute “proof of self-governance?”

I think they told you in advance that you would be the “whipping boy” of the “debate”. You were predefined as a “Statist” (similar to being called a “holocaust denier”, an “antisemite”, a “truther”, or a “hater”. There was no actual debate. This whole article became based on a fiction of “debate”, which never happened.

The government (and other corporations) rely on no dictionary for their definitions (or redefinitions) of words within any particular contract, they define (or redefine) terms in these self-contained documents.

I agree that your articles are prolix, and I would appreciate that you find (I would volunteer), a proofreader and spell checker (not the automagic kind, which lets common misspellings get by), and an editor to eliminate duplicate ideas and concepts within the same article. The idea here should be to make your point as concisely as possible, not to show off your prolific writing ability in terms of words per article. A good editor would not change the meaning of your original article, and would attempt to retain all of your original nuance.

Anyway, regardless of the waste of time in much of this (and much of all of your past articles), thank you for the discussion. Any editor would tell you keep it short, sweet and to the point.

@ Am, “Massive reform and minimal government would be my ideal” so that also makes you a statist i.e. a mnarchist.

You still want a government in control over you, but you just want a little less of it, i.e. a few more choices, of at least the illusion of having those choices ?. but you fail to realise government is the very problem, why because it’s compulsory you support it, and if they don’t respect you enough to rely on your voluntary support, so having to base their nature in violence and coercion proves it’s flawed concept.

If people are supposedly too stupid to run their own affairs and live in society, then n how can the people who call themselves government be trusted either, they are just people also correct. And therein lays your dilemma.

The fact you can’t evolve the way you think, past the propaganda of “we need government” is the one of the biggest problems in society today.

mezocosm

Sidney Smith

To Reality,
For the last 2000 years Govrnment Inc, Religion Inc.(banker’s, Lawyer’s, corporation’s) will not let you know who you really are Law Of One created Male and Female sovereign by the Creator. Our Dominion from Genesis Chapter one 1-26, 1-27, 1-28, Our Love and the Truth, delegation of Authority, power, Jurisdiction, Liberty, life the pursuit of happinees grant of Divine Right’s from God. Our Authority for We are the Dominion kingdom of God within you and me we are all equal, therefore, God is Supreme nothing matters and everything else is a illusion “legal fiction”. So as with love and the truth we are doing the right thing for the right reason to change our life and the government.

Clint, thanks for your patience in not only explaining this, but in your “debate” with “Marc(k).” I’ve had a few arguments with others, attempted to arrive at a basic agreement on terms and philosophical assumptions. And, I am grateful that those discussions weren’t recorded for mass consumption and posterity. 😉

While I find this valuable, and am eager to see the Strawman book, I’m struggling with the . . . for want of a better word, validity — as in how you evaluate the validity — of a definition source.

If I were to apply the Trivium to the widely respected practice among medical “experts” to vaccinate, I could ask What, When, Who, Where questions, review primary sources, and screen for contradictions and logical fallacies. Among those fallacies: appeal to authority, appeal to popularity.

But, with the meaning of terms, primary sources get a little murky (at least for me). I concur with your position that you should know the terms of the fictional construct (government) in which you are in servitude to. But, how to reconcile the meaning of those terms outside or after the fictional construct . . .

In the case of Black’s Law and Bouvier, these sources have been commissioned and/or adopted by the U.S. Government. Governments are ephemeral constructs. Admittedly, less so than say . . . me . . . but governments do end. They have a life cycle. Governments end replaced by new governments with a new set of laws, and a new language, complete with novel definitions from which to acquire compliance from their citizens.

The reality of our current situation is that we are subject to a set of laws, with terms defined by a prescribed set of books, within a fiction known as government.

But, how to reconcile the primacy of those definitions, given their ephemeral nature, with the Trivium, I cannot say.

If I try and sell you that the word evil is actually the word good I seriously have not doubt that you would call me out and thrash me for it. You would likely not even entertain a debate.

But somehow the word anarchy (chaos) is being sold as the word order (rules with no rulers) and instead of treating it like the evil/good lie we question the validity of EVERY definition in EVERY legitimate source available?

Does that really make logical sense to you?

Because these guys are selling nothing but non-sense.

You cannot utilize the trivium without grammar, which includes the definitions of words, both in their origin and in their art. Your words mean nothing unless you know the meanings of your words.

Incubus

About 7-8 years ago I was in the same position Clint is at now. My introduction to the freeman/strawman idea seemed at the time a grand removal of the wool from over my eyes. Granted, it did help set me on a path of discovery, a path that ultimately led to where Marc and others reside now. I can’t, nor will I, speak on behalf of anyone but myself, nor proclaim to adopt the viewpoints and beliefs of others wholeheartedly. Certain outlooks may align with that of Marc and others like him, but I do not choose, nor condone, being represented by the stances of anyone other than myself. That said, the foundation from which Marc bases his statements on in regards to government, are rooted in objective reality. It all comes down to coercion. Support is in fact compulsory. What the practice of anarchy strives to achieve is to remove that compulsion. This does not mean that crucial services that are currently provided my government are unwanted. It means the way in which they are provided is sought to be eliminated.

It is easy to extrapolate a word when you’re given such a blunt definition of “no rulers”, into a nightmarish landscape of chaos and mayhem. It leaves enough room for interpretation up to the imagination, to be so malleable it can be contorted any which way. For many though, what is inferred is not necessarily disorder, but order born out of willfulness; without compulsion. Leadership is a natural trait within our species, as is the want or need to follow. The issue arises when that leadership, that “authority”, comes by any way other than consent. This is the epitome of government; an initiation of violence and the monopoly thereof. By its very nature government is immoral and unfit to exist.

Clint, I don’t know how much time permits you to read these comments, I’m sure you have a busy schedule. But I want you to know, I’ve been where you’re at. The road out of the matrix is a long, hard, and often overwhelming one to trek. Arriving to where I’m at now did not come without resistance. Having a facade stripped abruptly away can be very draining. However, it gets better. And as time progresses the world around you begins to make more sense, and every day you strengthen a firmer grasp on reality, as sordid as it can seem. That said, I truly wish you the best on the rest of your journey. It won’t be easy, it won’t be short, but it will be worth it, and I look forward to meeting you on the other side.

Incubus

This idea that the birth certificate assigned to you is a contract, one that you were unable to willfully enter, and it effectively creates a fictitious entity bearing your name. A corporation that is used in the form of commerce with another corporation, THE UNITED STATES.

Zonsb

Clint, The following 6 questions (#2 has two questions) excluding question 2b, the other five questions require no more than a “yes” or “no” answer. So at minimum state clearly your yes or no answer to each of the five questions. Anything you chose to write beyond your yes or no answers is obviously your choice. Larken Rose is the author of the six questions.

1) Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?

2) Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right to do things which other people do not have the moral right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right?

3) Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act (without changing the act itself)?

4) When law-makers and law-enforcers use coercion and force in the name of law and government, do they bear the same responsibility for their actions that anyone else would who did the same thing on his own?

5) When there is a conflict between an individual’s own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, is the individual morally obligated to do what he personally views as wrong in order to “obey the law”?

There are no yes or no questions presented here that would not give you ample opportunity to assume my answer means what you wish to believe it means. No thanks.

I know, I know. A good fool would surely answer no to all these questions right? Piss on your word magic. Learn the damn principles of law or stop following blind men, misleaders.

1) Yes – Volunteerism. Via voluntary U.S. citizenship. People volunteer to be put in sexual bondage all the time. The black slaves resisted being set free after the civil war. What’s the shocker here? Still don’t think it’s voluntary? That it?

2) Yes – Ty their morals, not mine or yours. Your source may not be their source, and frankly its arrogant and downright foolish to superimpose your particular moral code on anyone else as if they must believe what you believe is right and moral. Even thieves have honor among themselves man.

3) Yes – It’s called legalization and “license”, which is, not ironically, a synonym of anarchy. The point of the creation of legal government is to, through legality, act immorally and against God’s law of nature by strict law of persons in commerce as fictions of law. Fiction aint reality. Fiction aint nature.

4) Yes – And the law agrees with me, unless “license” is granted. Again, anarchy (license) in government makes anything possible. The law in chaos.

5) No – He is not morally obligated. He is legally obligated. Fictional persons have no morals. They aren’t of nature. What a dumb-ass question!

These questions only work on the grammatically challenged and the fallacy-vulnerable. Now run along and pretend I just admitted to being a statist, though I was just giving correct answers according to the law you also pretend doesn’t exist or doesn’t bind you. Oh, and thanks for dictating the response rules to my own blog. Sorry to disappoint…

P.S. If I have read this situation wrong, and you are not just a dirty whore of a troll, then my apologies. May your journey find happiness amongst the current and impending chaos.

CJ528

Clint – your research is amazing and your detailed explanations as well. It seems like the main point is that you have a problem with Marc and others using the term Anarchy to describe what they want, right? So why not just try to figure out what it is they want and then identify what that should be called? He’s saying, we want anarchy because anarchy mean no rulers. We don’t want corrupt so-called government officials telling us what to do and forcing us to do things. And you’re saying, that’s not anarchy. Anarchy is confusion within a state or blah blah blah. Instead of spending so much time arguing over the definition of anarchy. Why not just try to find out what everyone MEANS and then go from there? So maybe anarchy isn’t the right word to use since they are using it to mean something else than what you’re using it to mean. I think you guys have similar ideals in the end, you’re just arguing over what words to use to describe it.

Sidney Smith

to reality,
The birth certicate is contract they to created for you a corporate enitity now as surety a slave which you have no right’s privilges, or own anything only a slave. You have to read the declaration of Indepenence it has divine right’s written within it, and the other document that goes with it the one people public trust of 1776 abrogation of commercial law the Slavery System signed July 04, 1776. The slavery sysem legal fiction it has been around for a long time and came to Indian country, sovereign Law of one divine rights, Native American’s are sovereign’s in 1492.therefore, God is supreme nothing else matters everything else is illusion fiction and We are all equal Genesisi one chapter 1-26, 1-27, 1-28, Love and truth, degation of Authority, power, jurisdiction, self-government, Liberty, life the pursuit of happiness, their is no love and truth in legal fiction illusion.

am

“You still want a government in control over you, but you just want a little less of it, i.e. a few more choices, of at least the illusion of having those choices ?. but you fail to realise government is the very problem, why because it’s compulsory you support it, and if they don’t respect you enough to rely on your voluntary support, so having to base their nature in violence and coercion proves it’s flawed concept.”

“Government” should be there to manage… projects on behalf of the people who provide the funding. Without cooperation, necessary (or at least desirable) projects would not be achievable. Those projects should be selected/agreed by those who pay for them. But without managers large scale projects would never get off the starting blocks. Imo the problem is not governent per se, it is not the concept that is wrong but rather how the concept is being applied and distorted/corrupted because the governors are not really selected by the governed and they work for those who do select them rather than those who provide the funds and in their interests and not mine or yours. Our governments have overstepped the mark in assuming powers to themselves that there is no need for them to assume. But this does not make government per se the “problem”. A large part of the problem is that individuals cannot be bothered to involve themselves in politics (by that I mean matters that affect them on a daily basis). I might say that media is the problem because they don’t do their job the way it is meant to be done either and if they did the problems with government would be nipped in the bud. By saying that government is the problem are you not abdicating your own responsibility in the situation?

Since the actual term government is offensive in its etymology and historic associations, perhaps we need to replace the word government but, again Imo we do need some structure to facilitate projects as described. Personally, I would prefer to change the product and put up with the name rather than the other way around 🙂

I take it you are labelling me a “statist” by way of insult? I’m not one for labels and frequently don’t really understand what is meant by them when I come across them. I am just trying to be realistic in formulating my own ideas about what is actually needed and how it might be made to work in a good way for most of us. I like Clint’s idea that we might let managers who we appoint come up with ideas which we then approve or veto, as the majority decide.

Vin James

Well that’s why I called you a statist, because you’re in favour of a small group of people forcing everyone else to support them via taxation?, so if your insulted by me saying that, tough be insulted it doesn’t change the fact your supporting the concept of government, and that’s what statist do , make excuses for a criminal organisation called “goverment”
.
I have to ask you, who do you think these so called “projects” are carried out by who and what exactly ?, oh that’s right it usually given out to private contractors, you know people with real skills that build the infrastructure of society.

do the people who are going to be these middle men and women actually possess these skills, because the thing is; any old monkey, can sit back on their fat arse, and delegate a job to someone else ?.

Incubus

“LOL. Let’s have a test. As you of course provide no citations, please tell me what “freeman” means according to your grand wisdom and let’s see if you took a wrong turn somewhere just past Strawman?”

This idea that the birth certificate assigned to you is a contract, one that you were unable to willfully enter, and it effectively creates a fictitious entity bearing your name. A corporation that is used in the form of commerce with another corporation, THE UNITED STATES.

am

“Well that’s why I called you a statist, because you’re in favour of a small group of people forcing everyone else to support them via taxation?, so if your insulted by me saying that, tough be insulted it doesn’t change the fact your supporting the concept of government, and that’s what statist do , make excuses for a criminal organisation called “goverment”
.
I have to ask you, who do you think these so called “projects” are carried out by who and what exactly ?, oh that’s right it usually given out to private contractors, you know people with real skills that build the infrastructure of society.”

Calm down pet, I was not in the least insulted by the label. If it comforts you to call me a statist, you just go right on ahead 🙂

However, please desist from putting words into my mouth.

I am not, nor did I say or imply that I am, in favour of anyone forcing anyone else to do anything. If managers’ payment is raised through a reasonable level of tax, what is wrong with that? Everyone needs to be compensated for their work.

“Government” is not and cannot be criminal because it is only a word or a concept. People who are in government can, however, act in a criminal manner and many if not all of them currently are indulging in criminal behaviour and against the wishes and best interests of the majority of the people they claim, rather dubiously imo, to represent. I never have nor ever will condone criminal behaviour. Because it is that way now, does not mean it will always be that way or that it needs to be that way. Are you having difficulty understanding that?

Those who carry out the projects need to be coordinated, just as those who manage on our behalf need to take their instructions from us and be held accountable to us. Without some kind of central funding mechanism the good people who do the work on the ground wouldn’t have any projects to work on.

Try looking beyond what is to what is possible and don’t go throwing the baby out with the bath water just because the water needs changing 🙂

There can be no legitimate obligation to comply with immorality, as everybody knows taxes are forced upon people, otherwise called theft in lay terms, and you’re advocating it, which is in direct contradiction to what you said in your first sentence.

So who’s putting words in your mouth again?, because all I have done quote you directly, and pointed out the logical error in your statement ?.

You did exactly the same thing when you said in the Skype chat “So my saying I know a lot of people that value government and law, which was not stated as an actual reference to me by the way, therefore means that I’m a statist and so all my other questions are invalidated?”

But then in the next sentence you say,

“ Like I said VIN, go try and be an anarchist where there is no government and law to protect you, and see what the hell happens to you”.

Which is exactly the same argument the people you claim to “only know” i.e. statists bring up, when arguing against the concept of anarchy, why because you like all other statist want, need and will bow down to rulers.
So you’re claiming here not to be a statist, who is someone in favor of having a government, and will argue dogmatically in its defense.

It’s not the first time you’ve done it, and you continue to make contradictory statements. It’s hard to believe people actually take you seriously, and can’t see through your sophistry.

Do you even take the time to think, or reflect on what your saying half the time ?
Keep the double think coming Clint, you’re doing a great job, making the case for Anarchy, and why we don’t need rulers.

am

Poor vin. I may contradict myself according to your rules and how you choose to interpret what I say rather than questioning further. Taxes need not be compulsory. If the projects are beneficial to the masses I’m sure enough of us would support them and if you choose not to we could probably manage to let you keep your dosh in your wallet. But I am only mulling ideas, not trying to convert people to something I hold to like a religion.

I didn’t have any Skype conversations, so you are clearly very confused.

I think you could do with calming down and opening up your mind instead of continuing to flog this one horse.

synthikat

Clint, you are very mistaken in my view. The entire history of the West’s colonialism and the psychopaths governing it and its genocide of most “religious” native tribes and religious dissenters [heard of the Cathars?] demonstrates the Elite are irrational and only operate according to codes when it suits their evil natures and so any appeals to truth have fallen on cold shoulders. Trying to use their language and codes against them is far more futile than anarchism. When they can’t dominate with law they just cheat, lie and get violent. The continual violation of “Native American” tribal peace treaties shows that. They didn’t even bother with offering treaties with most tribes around the globe, all of whom certainly had made no prior contract with Euro “sovereigns”. You don’t even define what a “religious man” is [“such as…” is merely an example] but it is moot since clearly, despite your claims, Elite people like Theodore Roosevelt don’t really give a shit about what we think or say as long as it does not threaten their power. They lie every which way in an effort to control us and waving a Bible [which version is “The Bible” BTW?] about and abjuring contracts in their courts or by “legal” document has no evidence for it actually working, indeed even in my mind having any basis. To say that an anarchist can not prove that their law is higher than the govt bullshit is just silly… the govt can’t prove their laws are higher either. They always have been pulled out of royal butts and been forced on the slaves and nothing has changed. Contracts are not valid anyway if not based on informed consent… so we are not voluntary slaves. People do not know, the sales pitch and information on the bill of goods is fraudulent and if we did not give consent their hired thugs would slam us into prison just for living our lives. Coercion thus also renders the contract invalid. Thus the whole “voluntary” valid contract idea is very wrong. You can’t even sign it “under duress”. There is no reasoning with them. All of this and your words are just words… until you or anyone documents successful victories in court for freedom and truth using “The Bible” and/or abjuring citizenship and related contracts your claims are suspect and tenuous at best. I like most of your work but this Bible and Freeman stuff is just… unproven.

Vin James

Wow, where do i start, reading this for hours..i see your stuck in your definition of anarchy, as far as i know a MON-archy is ruled by ONE, therefore ANarchy is ruled by NONE..simple for a peasant, such as I. since you like definitions so much, i actually looked it up after i typed that on Etymology… an- (1) privative prefix, from Greek an-, “not, without,”, dosnt mean chaos.

Your also stuck on this govern-ment thing, after being attacked by many throught my life, i see Marcratic logic to be the simplest Occam’s razor, and after appearing..ok, let me rephrase, showing up in court, seeing these psychopaths in real time, its simple, theyre criminals pretending to have jurisdiction, and forcing you to pay them for breaking THEIR rules, acts, statutes,code, regulations, religious bible bable. I see you beLIEve in God and Government?, do you also believe in Santa clause or the easter bunny? let me ask you, what is number 2 book to read in the judiciary study book area of Yale? Link to their “Judicial Print Resources” is here provided for you and your listeners… http://www.law.yale.edu/studentlife/cdostudentslibraryjudicial.htm

please explain why is it #2, and why is it even there to begin with? Maybe #3 book should be, “Easter bunny lays eggs in the north pole, while Santa Clause delivers presents to all, around the world in 30 seconds”. I listened to almost all of your past shows, and was entertained and awed, but now i see, that your just arguing with Marc to get back at him for something?,not sure what, but that is not of my concern. as for Jan Irwin, im shocked he was so BIASED against Marc also, again, makes me wonder whats the underlying reason?…that said, let me reply to some of your quotes in this article,

“..and their fans and cult-like followers continue to espouse the wonder of anarchy without a single ounce of source material verifying their proclamations. “ <> evidence of anarchy?..YA sure, WAY before our times, way before so called “authority” was established“..

“is truly the blind leading the blind, or as anarchy is defined below, the leading of the leaderless.” << no one is leading me, marc isnt my “leader”, he is a regular man, pointing to FACTS in REALITY, what he and others have OBSERVED, and what I to have observed, and AM observing, through out their [and my] lives.. as for “ blind leading the blind”, id say, now, that sounds just like you! .

“especially one that relies on false dialectic (logic without source).”<<are you saying YOUR logic is “definitions” and court “opinions” your REAL source? To “prove” your position is correct?…ps I read a lot of court “opinions” of “actors” playing a role..I being, or I was, a part of the movie industry myself, I now see it as “actors playing on a pretended stage”, but using you as the “body..aka corpus delcti” to play with , and extort legal tender using the false strawman known to most as “government” and using those fancy legalsleeze magic terms/words such as "jurisdiction".

“Be sure to read the comments and read the rhetoric with your fallacy-buster glasses on.” <<i agree, I need those glasses to see the bullshit being spouted, by many “pay” try it out nutballs. [rule of law Eddie calls them patriot NUTs ?, I think, as memory serves me, John Stuart called them pay try idiots?] .

“When someone comes along with knowledge of language and is able to disprove the falsely recreated grammar of the peddlers of false enlightenment, what else can the gurus do but to attack the messenger?” <<< EXACTLLY what you are doing, look in the mirror, and I NOW see YOU ARE “recreated grammar of the peddlers of false enlightenment”.

“Force, duress, coercion… it’s all spelled out right here for you. And it only applies to the fictional person.”<<TELL that to the cop assaulting you, and your REAL body..hes not beating up or shooting a FICTION! hes not thinking to himself, im only killing a PERSON-FICTION, its all ok, its not real, were all in a fake matrix.(facepalm)…“with integrity and then speak out against these false prophets “<<< exactly what im thinking (clint) you might be one of those false prophets, CON-fusing people??,

“even as his reputation is being attacked, though not his message. The fallacies are flying, and the gurus are in full damage control.” <<< yup I see your whole blog page is doing exactly that. The more I read it, the more I think its a mirror image, and your the "guru" that could be the “frank rizzo” of this whole “lets attack the messenger”… “with integrity and then speak out against these false prophets “<<< exactly what im thinking (clint) you might be one of those false prophets, CON-fusing people??,

sorry to be "frank", (pun intended), but being in this freeDUMB existence we call demo(mob)cracy(rule), i'd rather be in AN-Archy, at least I might have a better chance in surviving an attack by criminals calling themselves "government"..and if that Term, means "governing the mind", then theyre doing a great job on you and others,.. for me its simple, its criminals, like the mafia, but dressed in clown/crown uniforms, with guns and steel toed boots, forcing their "services", ie. extortion on many sheeple.

Be well, Be free, as free as you can be, and stop the "in" fighting, its no way to get along with others, just wanting to be free, from this slavery forced upon us by trickery, magic, sorcery, and legalSleeze twist of terms and words. Thanks for the debate with marc, I wore my "logic glasses"..and i see NO logic in any mumbo jumbo voodoo, definitions, UCC, ALL CAPs name-NAME-NaMe, Admirlty or commerce, its simple, as Marc says ? DBA Gov.Co. is nothing more them liers, thieves and murderurs. ps sorry for the spelling errors, im an "I am a Grant"..(immagrant), pss, as my mother says, "sorry for you bothering me" (another face palm).

Jan,JAN,Yawn,JuaHn, aka Slovak Slave trying to find freedom, but only found freeDumb, and dummber, so far. Peace withIN and OUT.

am

If you can’t agree to disagree then you are probably going to be in conflict. I’m sitting here wondering who it is trying to force their opinions on others? There has probably been more than enough said here for people reading to draw their own conclusions. What is achieved for us by us arguing among ourselves?

Jan

Thanks for replying to none of my questions..objection, non responsive, move to strike.. im not here to argue, im here to voice my logic from decades of listening to so many, with so few logic..so thanks for agreeing to ?disagree? to no agreement?..or am i playing with words?..so let me ask you just ONE question here reiterated ” let me ask you, what is number 2 book to read in the judiciary study book area of Yale? Link to their “Judicial Print Resources” is here provided for you and your listeners… http://www.law.yale.edu/studentlife/cdostudentslibraryjudicial.htm ” ? thank you for the discussion.

Vin James

“agree to disagree”, oh please, not that old chestnut again, used by those who are lazy thinkers, It ranks up there with “everyone is entitled to their own opinion” among the pantheon of dishonest and self-defeating statements made in lieu of rational argument, from those who are quick to pick an argument for the sake of it, and for the need to be right all the time, a bit like what Clint has demonstrated.
You call me and other people closed minded etc, and the try to pull that stunt ?, No I will not “agree to disagree”, maybe it’s because I am stubborn and actually care about the truth, and I don’t like seeing friends of mine personally attacked unjustifiably.
People like myself who are involved in the No State Project, won’t eat bullshit and pretend it’s cherry pie.
What your trying to do is say; “we’re both equally right, both equally wrong.” It is an arch-liberal dodge, invoking the most ludicrous type of relativistic equivocation, and remembers this is exactly the trick Clint tried to pull on Marc, when he said” it’s all relative”.
Arguments, debates, and discussions on these issues can, and usually prove useful, even if only to those who have recently been introduced to these issues, even if they do nothing more than expose dis-information, from guru’s and statist.
I am sure most literate people can recognize a disagreement, but they may not always be able to spot the logical fallacies, and appeals to jargon, eloquence, and Information Overload; that Clint is so fond of doing.
What we have here are two groups at opposite ends of a philosophy, and pathway to the truth, one is demonstrably true and the other based on nothing more than feelings, whims wants and baseless opinions, and does not share same standard of proof, as the other.
The fact that Clint makes such a big deal about word definitions, but at the same time refuses to accept definitions based on the original or even lay terms is very telling about his own agenda.
If you don’t want to discuss this matter any further then just say so ?, but don’t pretend to have a put forward a valid position, yourself, and treat it as a mere difference of opinions, that’ s the problem with those who support “government”, they can’t handle the fact they are dealing with well informed and intelligent Political atheist.

am

“If you don’t want to discuss this matter any further then just say so ?, but don’t pretend to have a put forward a valid position, yourself, and treat it as a mere difference of opinions, that’ s the problem with those who support “government”, they can’t handle the fact they are dealing with well informed and intelligent Political atheist.”

It is not possible to have any reasoned discussion with someone who is so confused that they cannot remember from the start to finish of a short post who they are addressing! (See your rather confused post above) let alone with someone who is totally disparaging and dismissive of my POV presumably because it is not congruent with your own.

You may consider yourself a “well informed and intelligent political atheist” but from my viewpoint you are an obnoxious and arrogant religious zealot. You have found “the truth” and now you want to “enlighten” all those in your path. You are unlikely to “convert” many with the arrogant and thoroughly unpleasant attitude you exhibit here, unless you plan to “force” others to seeing it your way.

I have already given you far too much credence and am moving on, having had more than a sufficiency of your self declared “information and intelligence” (which reminds me strongly of another group of people I find as distasteful as I find you.)

Vin James

In response to Clint’s redraft, of the post, and newly added fallacious arguments.

Do I have to point out that Marc states he is calling from “Scottsdale, Arizona” which is a name given to a geographical location, Coordinates: 33°30′N 111°56′W which is 31 miles long and 11.4 miles wide at its widest point which is the human perceived physical area limits of its location?.

And does it have to be pointed out that a governmental, municipal, corporate jurisdiction, is a political concept, and is NOT referring to something physical, but instead a belief system, that a state of affairs or particular relationship exists, simply because people live a in a particular geographical area ?.

Behind every name is a story, same goes for place names too, including towns and settlements etc?

For example Scottsdale: the recurrent word “Dale”, is an Old English word for a valley, so it can be safely assumed a physical feature, of the location referred to as Scottsdale is that it was a settlement built in or near a valley ?.

What you fail to realize is, just because people live in a “society i.e. a community, it doesn’t therefore follow that they are part of “government” or they are subject to any political ideology.

Neither does it follow that they owe anything too government because they are in a society.

As explained to you before, government is nothing more than a group of men and women, who call/label themselves as such, and they also live in a society/community.

Politics is something that is done to people, or in reality, imposed upon people, it is not done for people, their benefit, or their posterity etc.

Society does not exist because government created it, in fact but quite the opposite, if society never existed, neither could a group of people decide to call themselves a government, and so it is government that needs society for its support, not the other way round.

That’s one of your many problems understanding these issues Clint, you’re reification, “government”, and societies are one of the same thing.

a fool who doesn’t read the Bible as political code.
“words…are the treasure of government, for words hold power and construct secrets.”
a fool who regards “God as nature’s design and self-evident truth”.
God isn’t nature, it’s a fiction. a lousy attempt to incorporate nature by infamous narcissists who in my opinion only listen to themselves. nature speaks a whole nother language.
“and yet we need to know the disposition of the State, for it only recognizes ‘religious men’ to be free to act upon their moral beliefs.”
if there is just the choice between tyrants, I choose the mushroom over hellboy.
“man’s law is adversarial to the natural law (of God).” listen to yourself and tell me if this was really your final answer?

I always love when you’re getting emotional, seriously.
what another excellent sweeping blow of yours! congratulations, and thanks a lot.
#DueDiligence #QualityIsMyReligion
does there perhaps exist a definition for “the heart” in your shogunate of dictionaries? if not what would be your suggestion?

Incubus

Clint won’t be returning any time soon. Once people began pressing him and his cohort “KW” to produce evidence of this alleged declaratory judgment, he ducked out. At first I thought maybe Clint was well intentioned and genuinely misguided. Now I see him for the conman he is. I’m not the only one. Others see it too and at this point he can only fool the gullible, which unfortunately is likely the bulk of his listening audience. He’ll try and lay low for a while, ’til the heat dies down, but once he sticks his head out again I’ll still be here poking and prodding for that pesky, illusive proof. Don’t let this snake oil pusher get away with his BS while simultaneously contorting anarchy and debasing those who advocate it.

Chris

Fabulous discussion and post. I brought up some similar points over a year ago on the Mark Passio Discussion Group on FB. Only a few got it. Most decided to do the same that happened to you: call me a statist. LOL.

I argued that its normal for people to organize into some groups even if its just tribes, and and other social networks. I argued its very natural for power/group dynamics to take over as well as basic MBTI personality roles. People that organize into larger groups , also do so with the major risk that the group goes VERY BAD in the end as people absolve responsibility and follow orders as well. The founders of America were very aware of this. I also dragged out first hand quotes from Marx and Lenin where they are laughing at Anarchy as a failure back then because there is no organization, people afraid to lead, etc. Here you are Clint in this and on your recent podcast making similar points. You’ve know brought this blog way above other sites and are leaving many in the dust on this

Chris

Clint, check out what Trotsky said in 1937, about those using their form of anarchism for change:

Trotsky about anarchism

In and of itself, this self-justification that “we did not seize power not because we were unable but because we did not wish to, because we were against every kind of dictatorship,” and the like, contains an irrevocable condemnation of anarchism as an utterly anti-revolutionary doctrine. To renounce the conquest of power is voluntarily to leave the power with those who wield it, the exploiters. The essence of every revolution consisted and consists in putting a new class in power, thus enabling it to realize its own program in life. It is impossible to wage war and to reject victory. It is impossible to lead the masses towards insurrection without preparing for the conquest power.
No one could have prevented the Anarchists after the conquest of power from establishing the sort of regime they deem necessary, assuming, of course, that their program is realizable. But the Anarchist leaders themselves lost faith in it. They hid from power not because they are against “every kind of dictatorship” – in actuality, grumbling and whining, they supported and still support the dictatorship of Stalin-Negrin – but because they completely lost their principles and courage, if they ever had any. They were afraid of everything: “isolation,” “involvement,” “fascism.” They were afraid of France and England. More than anything these phrasemongers feared the revolutionary masses.
The renunciation of the conquest of power inevitably throws every workers’ organization into the swamp of reformism and turns it into a toy of the bourgeoisie; it cannot be otherwise in view of the class structure of society. In opposing the goal, the conquest of power, the Anarchists could not in the end fail to oppose the means, the revolution. The leaders of the CNT and FAI not only helped the bourgeoisie hold on to the shadow of power in July 1936; they also helped it to reestablish bit by bit what it had lost at one stroke. In May 1937, they sabotaged the uprising of the workers and thereby saved the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Thus anarchism, which wished merely to be anti-political, proved in reality to be anti-revolutionary and in the more critical moments – counter-revolutionary.
The Anarchist theoreticians, who after the great test of 1931-37 continue to repeat the old reactionary nonsense about Kronstadt, and who affirm that “Stalinism is the inevitable result of Marxism and Bolshevism,” simply demonstrate by this they are forever dead for the revolution.
(Trotsky, December 1937).http://fractioncommuniste.org/eng/bci01/bci01_8.php

Interesting right, how about LENIN on Anarchism?

some quotes that struck me:

1. Anarchism, in the course of the 35 to 40 years (Bakunin and the International, 1866–) of its existence (and with Stirner included, in the course of many more years) has produced nothing but general platitudes against exploitation.

3. Failure to understand the development of society–the role of large-scale production–the development of capitalism into socialism.

(Anarchism is a product of despair. The psychology of the unsettled intellectual or the vagabond and not of the proletarian.)

5. What has anarchism, at one time dominant in the Romance countries, contributed in recent European history?

as one can see, at least Passio is trying to use some “Teachings” of Hermeticism/Natural Law and bundle under the “tent” of the NEO-Anarchist movement. But one can see how this can catch many disgruntled intellectuals and vagabonds into a state of “inaction”. So in effect, anarchists dam well believe in a state. They want people to confirm to their “state of mind” and many will attack you while acting like they believe in non-aggression. In the end Lenin and Trotsky were right, this movement is DOA by design

sidney smith

Law of One is very clearly stated in Genesis Chapter One, 1-26, 1-27,1-28, this is our Divine Rights from the Creator; Delegation of Authority, power, Jurisdiiction, Liberty, life the pursuit of Happiness our kingdom of God iwithin us we are all equal, therefore, God created natural living being Male and female law of one we are all equal. God intent gave us no name for a purpose for liberty as natural living being with consent, free will from the slavery system commercial law of dead persons a corporate entitiy.

Ulrike Bose

You know these where zionist puppets with the same mentality as fascists just on the other side of the spectrum of forced rulers ? To quote them in terms of anarchism shows just that it is feared by them who control us. Its like asking Obama what he thinks about his throne ? Or a society without throne and laws.Or about drones…It makes no sense.

Incubus

Clint, aka “Drew Joseph Carter” (hard to say which is the real name and which is the stage name. Or are they both pseudonyms?), was pressed on providing evidence for KW’s and others so called “Declaratory Judgment” over at Marc’s forum, but immediately abandoned ship and hasn’t returned since.http://www.marcstevens.net/board/thread-7893.html

Clint, Drew, or whatever fake name he’ll conjure up next, is a conman. Big on claims, short on proof.

Ulrike Bose

I read the text and all the comments and must say i am pretty disappointed. Language is the first weapon of mass control, yet looking in dictionaries and arguing about a highly emotionalized term like anarchism is a waste of time. Quoting zionist communists is pretty pointless, cause they are the same as fascists, democrats etc. All believe in states and “laws” made by them and forced on others. And there are some examples for anarchic societies in the past, first and fore most in Spain, where Fascists and Communists fought TOGETHER against anarchists, the reason for why there are so few examples is because its so dangerous for our leaders, shamans-priests-kings-politicians. What about Kobane ? What about Somalia ? And dont confuse those disinfo clowns with their anarch capitalists, anarcho communists bs as real anarchists. In the essence of anarchistic view points, there is the question about private property, can someone really own a piece of the earth, a river, a forrest ? These are the real questions of anarchism, not what elitest who have the control over books and dictionaries want to spoon feet us with. I thought Clint could challenge my point of view and show me a different view, but in the end it was just a waste of my time, thanks for that. At least i can save my time when i see you on gnostic media or where ever again.

sidney smith

Without Prejudice, the land owned claimed by the U.S. government Inc. Religion Inc, and the United Nations Inc. at law they don’t exist the foundation of the New World Order. They cannot enter any kind of treaty, agreement , cannot own land, as a corporation legal fiction . So as a sovereign and Law of One we must take responsibility to make the change in our U.S. Government Inc. and come out of the Slavery System commercial Law by contract. Their Bible Rev. 18-4 say’s we cannot change the Slavery System when we are in the system we must come out to make the change by contract as a sovereign Law of One. Sovereign Law of One from Genesis Chapter 1-26, 1-27, 1-28 we have the Delegation of Authority , power, Jurisdiction, liberty, Life the pursuit of happiness we are all equal as God the Creator is within us. However, we created the slavery system Inc. so we must take the responsibility to make the change God is supreme nothing matter’s and everything else is a illusion fiction to make change in our government Inc..